Top Hedge Fund News, Member Posts, Hedge Fund Daily Indices and more!

1yr ago Hedge Fund Managed Futures Crypto Venture Capital Real Estate Alternative Investment mutinyfund Views: 975

-

 

In this episode I talk with Travis Kimmel

 

 

 

We talk all about: 

  • Operator Use Liberal Arts
  • Intellectual Dojo of Twitter
  • SAAS Treasuries
  • Why Do We Have Bonds?
  • And more! 

This is the link to Travis’ favorite book on management we discussed: 12: The Elements of Great Managing

Travis’ best book he has read in finance: Trade Wars Are Class Wars

I hope you enjoyed this conversation with Travis as much as I did!
 

 

Listening options:

 

 

Have comments about the show, or ideas for things you’d like Taylor and Jason to discuss in future episodes? We’d love to hear from you at [email protected].

 

Sign up to stay up to date with the Mutiny Funds and receive our long volatility research and reading suggestions.

ENTER YOUR EMAIL TO STAY UP TO DATE:


Download Transcript

Transcript Episode 44:

Tayor Pearson:

Hello and welcome. This is the Mutiny Investing Podcast. This podcast features long form conversations on topics related to investing, markets, risk, volatility, and complex systems.

Disclaimer:

This podcast is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment or tax advice. All opinions expressed by podcast participants are solely their own opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Mutiny Fund, their affiliates or companies featured. Due to industry regulations, participants on this podcast are instructed to not make specific trade recommendations, nor reference best or potential profits. Listeners are reminded that managed features, commodity trading, Forex trading and other alternative investments are complex and carry a risk of substantial losses. As such, they’re not suitable for all investors, and you should not rely on any of the information as a substitute for the exercise of your own skill and judgment in making a decision on the appropriateness of such investments. Visit mutinyfund.com/disclaimer, for more information.

Jason Buck:

So I know you did your undergrad and philosophy. Did you do postgrad work and philosophy or is it just undergrad?

Travis Kimmel:

No, I got tempted down that path by a professor of mine. But the funny thing about philosophy is, it’s really good. It’s a good framework for understanding the world, but then if you want to actually get out there and mix it up in the world, you just got to get out there. You can get cloistered pretty easily, you see these guys go for a PhD and then they never leave the university. And I just didn’t think that was the path, money is…

Jason Buck:

You just allied three questions for me to go in. So I got to choose IO direction. It’s like, we’ll get into maybe the guys that just stay in there because they like that ivory tower philosophy or continental style or you’re just debating what the definition of it is, which is just annoying. But I find that when people go for the undergrad side, it’s either you actually love philosophy, which is probably a red flag or you want to be a lawyer or like you said, it’s a way to think and build up that postgraduate work. But it sounds like you were actually somebody that loves philosophy.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. I started in international relations. I was thinking that could be an interesting path, I still think it might have been. And then got pulled into philosophy because it was sort of the keys to the kingdom on winning arguments, which at the time, I mean, I still love debating. As I met this guy, this professor of mine, he was doing his doctorate at the time and it was just an awesome professor. The guy made me think more than anybody else really had until that point, in a meaningful way. And he was just an absolute gangster on the words as weapons front. And so, I just sort of followed that thread for a little while. Got deeper into, I think I sort of majored in philosophy on accident. I just started taking all the philosophy classes, majored in English for a while. But the thing that I like about it is the way that it allows you to intake ideas and filter them in a disciplined way.

Travis Kimmel:

So ideas come from all sorts of sources. There’s just kind of floating out there in the world and a lot of them are just weird and toxic. And so it gives you this kind of mechanism for filtering out the good from the bad. I love that, it’s super, it wasn’t useful for a very long time. And then I got into to business and as you climb up the career ladder, it sort of kicks in your late ’30s, philosophy becomes useful. So it’s a weird, like an alarm bell on yourself that you’re going to make it to a level where it’s actually useful.

Jason Buck:

You almost have to in your ’20s, while you work your web corporate ladder, figure out what you want to do is you almost have to shut off that philosophy brain. You don’t want to be asking too many questions because you want to maintain those paychecks and that’s addictive.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. I mean the first thing when you’re junior, I mean, people hate it when say this, but when you’re junior, it was a very hard lesson for me to learn. The first lesson is like, you just got to learn to obey. You know what I mean? You get into this hierarchy and you just need to learn from others what the local domain knowledge is and how you can fit in there. And that it’s just an exercise in fitting in, which is very frustrating. Especially, if you’ve got inquisitive mind and you get in there all fired up to make a difference and all that. You just can’t, until you learn the ropes. And a lot of that is taking dictation from others, it took me a while to get that one.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. It’s interesting how, like you said, most of schooling, especially K through 12 and then even into undergrad and postgrad is about creating cogs in the machine, learning to obey. But then if you’re studying philosophy the right way, you’re actually learning the opposite. You need to learn new question, everything define your priors. Like you said, it’s an amazing way to build an infrastructure for debate. And actually, I didn’t realize we were that close in the ideas of, I actually started an international business and then was taking all the 400 level comparative religion classes. And they’re like, “you should just major in comparative religion. You’ve already done all the work.” And even though, to me, religion incorporated philosophy, especially I was specialized in Eastern mysticism, like Sufis, Daos, etc.

Jason Buck:

But then I went back later in life and read philosophy because in school, my first teacher it’s always dependent on that teacher. Like you said, you had a great one. That first class I had was like, that more continental style philosophy, like define what is in this sentence. And it was just a bad teacher and I was like, “this is terrible.” So I went away from it and then came back later. And like you said, I like that autodidact learning, because then I was just a veracious reader of philosophy. Because like you said, it makes you define your terms. But part of that, I wonder, we’re going to come back to the philosophy, especially your philosophy on Twitter. But part of that is, I always wonder why the skeptical tradition doesn’t do as well as any sort of additive tradition. Is it just because we love to create mental frameworks and everything and we don’t like ones that destroy them?

Travis Kimmel:

I think that’s part of it. It’s hard to sell. It is almost a pure antithesis. So you’re walking around the world with this framing of what’s wrong about this? And I think that it’s good hygiene, but it doesn’t really get anywhere. It’s fundamentally non generative. You’re just sort stripping away the things that would hold an idea back. It’s a very useful thing to have in an organization. But by itself, it doesn’t make anything. So in a way, a skeptic is almost always, it’s a weird way to frame it. But it’s almost always a team player as a skeptic, by some broad definition of team.

Jason Buck:

You think you’re always are or you’re not a team player?

Travis Kimmel:

I think you are. I think you have to be.

Jason Buck:

Yeah.

Travis Kimmel:

I think so, because you’re effectively looking to strip the chaff away from the wheat. The goal of a skeptic is to almost enforce discipline, but that’s non-generative. You’re not creating anything, you’re taking an idea, it’s a refinement process. And so, I think that it’s similar to when you do these brainstorming exercises, the brainstorming comes first and you don’t really want skeptics in the room there. And then once you have that seed of an idea, then you bring in the skepticism and you refine it down into something that is hardened and more world ready. It’s basically the function of it.

Jason Buck:

No, this is beautiful. I love that you brought it up this way and think about it. I never thought in the team player sense, but I get what you’re saying. I wonder do you think though then, people like us are maybe bipolar or schizophrenics, because you just said it’s like when you’re having that generative discussion, I always say at my firm is the improvisierend and just, don’t kill this baby. Like this thing’s so incoherent, it needs to be nurtured and watered. So we can’t be skeptical, we got to get this idea out there. Then once I can get it to a place where I can almost feel, man, it then the other part of my personality comes in and goes highly skeptical and tries to tear it down. And like you’re saying, it’s a refinement or a honing of that process. But to have those two people in one mind is kind of, people think they’re competing forces. I just wonder how you deal with it as well.

Travis Kimmel:

I had a long stretch of my career where I’m not sure I have dealt with it. I had a long stretch of my career where it was hard to make forward progress until I started partnering with people. And the guy I founded our startup with, this guy, Ben, he is a prolific creator. He’s high output. He and I generated ideas together and we sort of swap back and forth between the refinement and the output hats. But for me, a lot of that’s just working with people. It’s so great to have an external sounding board for ideas so that you’re not sitting there trying to wear gear shift between these hats all the time. And then these days, I just try to always hire people who are high output players and ideally better at what they do than I am.

Jason Buck:

That’s the wisdom of age, is we just start surrounding ourselves with just great people. But at the same time you had to build that world. It’s an interesting thing too, it’s like you’re essentially creating to go from zero to one. You’re taking an idea from your head and bringing it into the real world. And that is almost like creating a hologram. And even though you then search out people that are much better at you at doing their individual tasks, you are still that energy that holds that hologram together. So it’s a really weird feeling to every day you wake up and you almost have to animate this hologram. And the amount of energy that takes, even if most of the people are actually doing the actual physical work so to speak. It’s a weird construct where you’re basically building a worldview.

Travis Kimmel:

And I think that skeptical framing comes into play when have, if you find yourself as a manager of a team. It’s a very useful skillset because oftentimes in business, you’ve got a team they’ve got objectives and there is sort of cross-team chatter around, well, is this the way to do it? Should we do it this way? And if you can stand there as the skeptic and can sort of protect that little pocket that the team works in, that’s pretty valuable. Do we really need to pause here and think about what we’re doing or can we just keep running? The skeptic is the warrior at the gates. And if you’ve got a group of creatives who you’re working with, it can be a really useful skill to be the blast shield for them.

Jason Buck:

But we’re almost like, we were talking about right before we hit record is about the idea of shiny object syndrome, is like, but how do you maintain that? Being skeptical and knowing this may be refining the business and we need to go in this direction, but I also may be falling for shiny object syndrome. How do you deal with those two trade offs?

Travis Kimmel:

It’s a challenge. I mean, some of that probably comes down to the industry sort of traditions. I mean, in software, we’ve got, I think agile was a really interesting evolution. In the beginning, there was this waterfall thing where it’s like, you have this massive design and then you spend many years implementing it and then the design comes out. Well, the world picked up the pace so fast that there were legitimate critiques. There were sort of a legitimate, shiny object syndrome in response to that, which is the industry changes so fast, this isn’t working. We need to be able to move midstream. And so, agile is this notion of we’re going to sort decide on a couple weeks worth of work here. We’ll do that work uninterrupted and then, we’ll pause and have a period of feedback. And so, you get these rapid iteration cycles.

Travis Kimmel:

And I think that at some level, protecting against shiny object syndrome is defining a span of time that everyone is bought in on, where it’s like just the work happens in there. And then you pause and you shift for feedback and agile done half well, allows for this intentional gear shifting. It’s like build mode, take input mode, build mode, take input mode. We separate those, super effective.

Jason Buck:

But that’s why I wonder if that’s a particular thing with software development is, as you’ve start to play in all these other fields, besides just the software industry, especially you start getting into global macro and you set to deal with all these nebulous things. It feels like that’s a great function of software, is you can actually go on these sprints and actually get that feedback where you can’t really get that in a lot of other industries.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. I think the closest analog in trading is probably just knowing the timeline that you’re playing on. The funniest thing on Twitter is you get most of the vicious arguments on there are literally just people disagreeing on timeframe. You got a day trader who’s laughing at someone who has a two year thesis on something because it’s going the wrong direction that day. And I think that, that’s probably the closest analog to agile, which is if you got a trade, know when you’re wrong. Sure, maybe there are indicators that come in there and invalidate that ahead of time. But in general, if it’s a two year trade, put that thing on and then kind of wait. And I think that spins people out a little bit on the trading front, sometimes. Like two years, you got to be able to wait for a long time and have a bigger pain threshold sometimes with those.

Travis Kimmel:

A dollar trade’s a great example. Everybody’s bullish the dollar out on the back of COVID, the thing sank. Now it’s ripping again. And I think that for those that were in that thesis over the right timeframe, that’s ultimately validation of the view. And if you were trying to trade that thing as somebody who has to do quarterly reports or something, that would’ve been pretty challenging.

Jason Buck:

Well, as you see with Brent all the time, clients or other people just want to hate on an end to month basis versus, what’s the thesis. The way I always talk about it these days is, everybody’s got all of these thesis about whether it’s dollar, which is a much broader or an individual public equity. And I’m like, “you’re going to put together Steelman thesis, I get it.” And I’m probably going to fall for due to behavioral functions or I can try to Steelman the other side, but that leaves us with nowhere. Good philosophies is almost like Carney ’80s in a way. So I keep saying it’s like, “I don’t care what your thesis is. Tell me your position size and tell me what the rest of your book looks like. And then we can talk about if it’s hedge properly or whatever.” And if you’re taking a flyer on that small percentage, but you just said, I also need to add into those two dynamics is the time horizon, tell me the time horizon of your trade.

Jason Buck:

But at the same time, I think that’s the one thing that retail has advantage on. You just alluded to it, is time horizon. Yes, they don’t have that sharp stick of clients at their back and monthly liquidity or a quarterly earnings report. It’s like, if you have a different time horizon, then it’s a different thing. So to your point on Twitter, I think like you said, people are arguing about time horizon, but I think even more importantly, it’s people are always arguing about a singular trade and I find it completely pointless unless we’re talking about the overall portfolio.

Travis Kimmel:

Totally agree with that.

Jason Buck:

As you and I know even to just use Brent again, it’s like he has a very convex way of trading that dollar position. That’s a tiny fraction of his book, but nobody talks about, they think he’s just all in on the dollar or something. It just doesn’t work like that.

Travis Kimmel:

Not at all. And I think the flip side of that is you get into these, back to your point about the advantage of retail. I think that’s the only advantage retail has.

Jason Buck:

Yes.

Travis Kimmel:

This time horizon.

Jason Buck:

I agree.

Travis Kimmel:

The ability to just sit there and the ability to do something else, to not focus on it, which is a powerful advantage. I think it is, the more you self-identify as a trader, the less you’re able to realize that advantage. Because there’s this desire to have a wall of seven screens, watch every little tick on 10,000 different things. But the beauty of macro is, ideally it’s set it and forget it. And you’re planning for every scenario you can see and you’re constructing a book from more of an allocator than a trader. And you’re constructing this big book, that’s just a bulletproof as you can make it and then, you tune that.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. I keep frequently talking about, everybody thinks I hate global macro, which is not true. I just hate that everybody has these global macro narratives. It’s almost like a philosophy of everything.

Travis Kimmel:

Yes.

Jason Buck:

And I’m just like, it just doesn’t work like that. What you just pointed out is that to me, the best global macro traders in the world are great micro traders, right? And they’re great trade constructors and portfolio constructors, because like you said, they’re thinking maybe 2, 3, 5 years out, what can happen. And then, they look at the secondary or tertiary effects to try to construct trades with large asymmetric convexity to the upside. And Hugh Henry used to talk about extended pit. He doesn’t mind chopping off 5 to 10 of his legs because he is got 90 left.

Travis Kimmel:

Totally.

Jason Buck:

And it’s also, once again, it comes back to what’s trade construction, position size in your overall book? I don’t care about your big theory, philosophy of everything, about how you think the world works. That’s just self aggrandizement.

Travis Kimmel:

Yes.

Jason Buck:

But that’s what everybody focuses on, not the actual trade construction of their book. So people, feels like they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Travis Kimmel:

It’s easy to just sell stories. All this, to me, it comes back to the business model. And I think if you’re looking for somebody to hand a chunk of money to them, I guess, the thing that I would sort on is probably their mechanics around risk management. When do they have a framework for being wrong? If they have a framework for being wrong, it’s like, okay, well I’m just going to pull that off. That is going to be, you’re going to get a better outcome with them, than you will with somebody who is deeply invested in their beliefs. Which is a very weird thing, you want this sort of light touch. Like, “maybe I’ll take a shot at this FX trade or whatever.” And it goes south on and they’re like, “all right, well, I either messed up the entry or they just pull it off.”

Travis Kimmel:

That is a powerful skillset. And it is almost the opposite of the skillset of narrative trading. I mean, narrative trading is very… I always think of it as, you’re out there in the ocean and instead of just riding the waves, you’re pulling boulders out there with you on your surfboard, trying to drop them in and make the wave. They just seem so feud up, it’s really wow.

Jason Buck:

What scares me even more though, is it’s different as an institutional allocator and you have people that trade very niche strategies. It’s really great to pick up on those. But my issue is more the newsletter. I’m not going to pick on anybody specifically, but the newsletter writer luminaries and global macrospace that talk about dollar monetary operations, etc, is how many clients or potential clients I’ve talked to where they’re like, they just follow that one person religiously. And to your point, I’m always like, “what if they’re wrong?” If they’re betting everything on inflation, what if they’re wrong, or the opposite? If they’re betting everything on deflation or deflation, what if they’re wrong? And they never think about that. And I think you’re just me, is like the idea of following somebody else religiously and doing everything they say, and then not seeing their trades or anything just doesn’t make it sense.

Travis Kimmel:

It doesn’t make any sense.

Jason Buck:

Any sense to me at all. But why do you think that? So maybe we’ll get into this. So why you find global macro so fascinating? I think about it as, there’s nothing more enticing for older white males, that if I made a modicum of money in life to then become a global macro trader and have a philosophy of everything. Because it’s like, you become a thunder God, right? It’s nothing more, because we said, it’s become a philosophy of everything. And so, it’s just the most enticing thing. And I’m just wondering what dragged you in.

Travis Kimmel:

I think a lot of it is, it’s the way a liberal arts degree was designed to be used. So if you go back, think about where liberal arts comes from. Liberal arts was essentially a generalist education for the ruling class. And so, you get a little bit of money and you feel like you’re finally able to make use of this weird BA that you got a long time ago, right? You’re like, “oh man, I know a little bit about all this shit.” And so, it’s seductive in that way. It feels like you can put that education to work. And I think that some of that is just an outright mirage. I think it’s certainly a part, there’s a truth in it. But you have to take all of that with a grain of salt because, unless you’re approaching trading in a way where being wrong, doesn’t hurt you. You’re going to get hurt, because you’re mostly wrong.

Travis Kimmel:

If you can do macro in a way where you’re seeing a lot of these opportunities, you’re planning for, I don’t know, 80% of your trades to be wrong and you still make money, that’s a powerful thing. But I feel like that becomes this afterthought and all of the narrative, I’ve cracked the case here, detective crap gets put in front of that and that mangles people.

Jason Buck:

Yeah, it’s not a Dan Brown book. That’s how people need to learn. My partner Taylor, always talks about what you just nailed is like, he talks about capital allocation is the Apigee of a liberal arts education done right. But at the same time though, I wonder what I deal with. I don’t know if you deal with this, is if you’re a founder, CEO or you run a total portfolio solution book or whatever it is, it’s part of our maybe insecurity about where Jack of all trades, master of none and we can’t actually apply for a job. So we create these jobs that like, no I’m good at capital allocation, says the laziest man ever.

Travis Kimmel:

Totally. I’m more of an idea guy, really.

Jason Buck:

Exactly.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. It’s the same thing. and I think inside of that, there are these fun little things that you can unpack. And the reason I got so obsessed with treasuries as a structure is that it’s like, it’s a hedge that’s positive carry, that’s awesome. And people come back and say, “well, it’s not a hedge in inflationary environment with a real…” And that sure, it still is. It’s a hedge against an environment where there are are bunch of people going and solvent, because it’s the only place to run, it’s money. And I find that to be fascinating. I even wonder, I guess, spend time thinking about these systems, should that even exist or should a hedge always be negative real return? Have we finally found equilibrium in the system, now that we’re seeing treasuries be negative real return? I think perhaps, a hedge should bleed you a little bit. Otherwise, there’s something wrong, something off in the systems dynamic there.

Jason Buck:

No, you nailed the end. To have a positive carry hedge for the last four decades is like you said, it shouldn’t exist.

Travis Kimmel:

It’s broken.

Jason Buck:

So then, do you pay for an inflationary environment or you just, we go so negative that you’re still getting that hedge. But also once we get towards the zero bond, you start losing convexity of that hedge. When it rates like 6, 7, 8%, you have a lot of actually convexity in that hedge, which is really nice. You not only positive carry, but a lot of convexity. But that’s actually one of the things I definitely want to dive into is, it’s really rare I think for somebody with an entrepreneur mindset to then be obsessed with treasuries. It’s almost anathema to, that’s not usually the creative people that are so fascinated by treasuries.

Jason Buck:

But kind of break that, I think you actually said it really succinctly, but kind of break that down more is you just view it as this is essentially cash. Or you and I have talked about privately, it’s the time value of money or all these things. But do you think about it more as a barbell where you’re just looking to put most of your portfolio and treasuries because you look at it as like a positive carry hedge? Or talk to a little bit more and dive into this.

Jason Buck:

Good carry hedge, or talk to me a little bit more and dive into this.

Travis Kimmel:

Well now, so let’s lean into the theory of everything.

Jason Buck:

Okay. Yeah.

Travis Kimmel:

All of the economy is treasuries. Everything is a derivative of the price of money. All of it. So part of my interest comes from a background and as a current gig as an operator, where you’re thinking about what does the price of money mean for business? So if the price of money goes up, let’s say tomorrow, The Fed gets sick of all the bullshit and just whatever, sets rates to 5%. What does that mean? That means that if you’re running a business, you have to get a risk adjusted return of more than 5%, otherwise investing in is irrational.

Travis Kimmel:

Now, what happens if we push it down to nothing, like we just did recently? Well, it’s pretty damn easy to get a risk adjusted, 1, 2% return. So much stuff. If you create a basket of companies to invest in, you’re probably going to win. It’s not that hard to carve a couple points out of the economy. So the more expensive money is, the more disciplined operators have to be. So all of this just ties back into the price of money. The price of labor ties into the price of money. So I look at the treasury market as the spine of the economy. Whatever happens there, ripples outward into all decisions that economic participants make, independent of whether or not they’re aware of them. And I don’t even know if it’s possible to see all those little ripples, but it’s an endlessly fascinating thing to attempt.

Jason Buck:

So I want to push back a little bit, because I think this is great. Because this is the question I always have, especially, this is why I said, it’s rare for an entrepreneur, founder, operator mindset to love treasuries as much as you do, in the sense that, I remember back when I was a commercial real estate developer, I don’t really care what the price of money is. I care about the delta of my return over the price of money. And so, we’ve had cap rate compression in commercial real estate, but that’s because the price of money comes down, but the delta has never changed, that percentage delta. So if rates are 6% and my project can make 10%, I have a 4% delta. If rates are 1% and my project makes 5%, I have a 4% delta. The delta has not changed.

Jason Buck:

And then as in software, it doesn’t matter really where Fed fund rates are at, lately, if you wanted to use Pipe or some other source of financing, as a software company, it’s going to be run at 12 to 18% interest only. That hurdle rate’s huge. What I’m saying is, I’ve never understood if the hurdle rate jumps up or down, you still need to be able to make a delta. And I’m not sure if that follows the economy, or if funds runs economy. To me, those rates are following the directional arrow of disinflation or whatever. And it’s like, so as a company like you said, as a company, if you’re now previously let’s say in the eighties and nineties, you can make a double digit return on your cash flow, on your CapEx spending. Well, now you can maybe only make 4 or 5%. So you’re hurdling that 1 to 2%. But I’m saying, I’m not sure the delta changes. This is the thing that ruminates at my mind all the time. So please push back on it.

Travis Kimmel:

So I think it matters. And I would say, I’d be willing to take the strong stance that rates are causal, and things emanate outward from rates. And so here’s how I think that happens. Let’s say you got… The real estate example’s fine, but let’s just say you’re financing CapEx. Right? So I got a book. I build a book around, I just put out a bunch of business loans. I’m lending it out at whatever, 8% or something. Rates are 2%. And I look at that and I’m like damn, this is great. I’m getting 6% gravy here. But I could go borrow at 4 or 5%. Lever this shit up, right? Like three to one, and get, I don’t know, 12, 15%.

Travis Kimmel:

So I go out and take the money. I take seven year money, lever it up. The reason rates are causal, and the reason there’s a lag is people get caught out in that refi moment. So it is, if you’re making spread and you can take cheap money to make a little more, the effect of rates rippling out is whoever gets caught in between where they need to refi their leverage to catch that gravy, and it’s not there. Right? And I think this is the way that the rate movements translate into the economy, is you catch operators out, and you catch operators out when they’re pretending to be financiers.

Jason Buck:

That’s a great way of putting it. But as the banks create the money, not the Fed, so they’re just using that hurdle rate. And now we have shadow banks that are doing lending on top of banks, and they just look for the risk to reward, like you said. So if they feel they’re going to finance SaaS companies, they’re going to look for that 12 to 13% return, even if they’re borrowing at 2 to 3%. Because like you said, they don’t want to get caught out.

Jason Buck:

But part of that though, I’ve always been fascinated by that, and I’m curious on your take on is, as an entrepreneur operator, we both know that cash flows are lumpy. They unfortunately don’t come on the first of the month or by on a bi-monthly basis. So it’s always been fascinating to me is like, why do we have financing structures that have deterministic pay down dates, or deterministic cash flows, when none of us have deterministic cash flows? And that’s why people get caught out, like you’re saying. So it’s like, from an entrepreneur, if I’m thinking about running a lending company, how do I make it amenable to entrepreneurs, to almost time with their cash flows? I think some people do it with convertible notes and maybe taking a percentage of profits or all that kind of stuff. But don’t you think that’s the largest function, and that’s maybe how the Elliot’s of the world or whatever, that lend to own is because they know people are going to default, because of just structural payments on a bi-monthly or monthly basis.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. It’s inevitable.

Travis Kimmel:

I think, whenever you see big rates, it’s like a bunch of people hit a bump. It’s really trippy. I think this is one of the things that, if you’re a participant in the economy, you want to look for those broken structures, like the positive carry hedge, and you want to seek them out. And I think, SaaS is one of them currently. It’s getting a little more efficient. But the brilliant-

Jason Buck:

Why do you think SaaS is… Yeah.

Travis Kimmel:

It’s to create a deterministic cash flow. It’s awesome. It’s the best business model ever. And when you look at these companies, who’s hitting the bump right now, and who’s already hit a bump and who hasn’t? Apple hasn’t hit a bump. That’s a little weird. You’d think. You look at that and you’re like, it’s a hardware company. You think they’d be getting hit. Well, if you unpack that a little bit, part of what they’ve done is they’ve put a bunch of their users on subscription plans for iPhones. So you pay a monthly and every couple years they just ship you the latest variant of whatever phone comes out. It’s brilliant. So they SaaSified their hardware to a certain extent. They made their cash flows more deterministic. You have all this app store income, which is in aggregate as a basket, fairly deterministic. And they’ve just smoothed out their entire P&L. And I think that it’s almost like cheating. If you can make your own business very deterministic, it’s really, really powerful stuff. The SaaS P&L is beautiful. You can just crank that thing up or down. So many levers.

Jason Buck:

And that’s why the multiples keep going up on SaaS P&L’s but that’s what I wonder, because Buffet made this whole insurance and float model that everybody loves. But then I think, as other hedge funds tried to get into owning insurance companies, it’s easier said than done. So the same with SaaS. It’s like, yeah, everybody would like a SaaS like income, but that’s the other part, it’s like easier said than done. Right? And you have this red queen principle to it. And maybe everything’s what you pay And then these multiples expand, because everybody wants that SaaS like income. Does that drive down the abilities to where they then, if they hit a bump, we’re either over levered or we can’t maintain those cash flows.

Travis Kimmel:

So let’s talk about the risk of SaaS businesses. So I think that the danger of SaaS is that you have to be a pretty savage operator in SaaS. And you can fall asleep pretty easily during bull markets, which this one has been very long. And I’d argue that we’re still in the same one since 08, maybe coming out of it here. And a SaaS company is essentially an extremely high beta organization at the organization level. So when GDP is growing, what SaaS does is go and compete for disproportionate share of that GDP with these awesome models that are easy to scale and you lever up, you lever up hard. Typically, we do it with equity capital, but it’s the same thing, you’re levering up. Right? You have a burn rate. You’re spending it into a deficit continually to take ground.

Travis Kimmel:

And then, when the economy turns, you have to be high beta that way too. So you got to cut quick, because if it becomes a dog eat dog game, you have a P&L that is designed to capture a disproportionate percentage of the upside. And now what we’re talking about is an environment where it’s down. Someone’s going to lose. When GDP contracts, people go out of business, there’s just less business. And so if you’re hyper levered, as GDP is contracting, you’re going to have a bad time. You can still pull it out. You can still compete hard and all that stuff, but typically it’s why you see techs start to cut first. We’re seeing this now. A lot of tech companies are pausing hiring, they’re doing cuts. Nobody’s really sure where the economy goes next. I still think we’re headed into a recession, because it’s due or whatever. It’s doesn’t have to be traumatic. It just happens. And so you’re seeing people adjust to that.

Travis Kimmel:

Now the challenge is that during COVID, there’s a real recency bias problem here, because during COVID a lot of these same companies, they did the thing. They pulled out their little shelf plan. They made a bunch of cuts. And then we turned around and said, you know what? We’re going to kick this recession out a little bit, because it seems like there might be an ethical problem with allowing it to happen now. And so all these companies had to turn around and rehire. And so, the inflationary burst that you saw in goods and services happened with labor as well. Companies got caught out.

Travis Kimmel:

We did the right thing as operators, we made cuts. And then the economy hit the gas and it’s like, oh damn. Now there’s this hyper-competitive labor environment. Everyone had to staff up. And so now all these operators are sitting there looking at, what looks to be the time where you start to do some cuts again. But the last time we did that, The Fed came in and saved the day-ish. And so I think that’s why you hear that in the economic narrative. Well, maybe The Fed’s got our back. The Fed’s going to pivot. This is the big meme right now. Right? The Fed’s going to pivot. I’m not so sure.

Travis Kimmel:

The reason they did it last time, it was arguably a societal ethical reason, to experience an end of cycle recession during a pandemic, which we didn’t have a lot of information about, it felt wrong. I don’t know that it feels wrong right now. I think it’s okay to rinse the balance sheets right now. And I think The Fed’s fine with it. It’s been a little ham-fisted. They’re out of phase. They probably should have started tightening six months into COVID. And there’s, all sorts of arguments around that, but I don’t know that they’re going to be squeamish. We’ll find out. What’s your take?

Jason Buck:

Well, I my first question’s always, would you want that job?

Travis Kimmel:

Wow.

Jason Buck:

Everybody likes to pick on The Fed and I’m just like, I can’t imagine being a human in that scenario, especially during COVID and all those things. And like you said, it was an ethical thing. And I honestly think they actually probably did the right thing. And then like you’re saying, you’re kicking the can down the road. I understand all the arguments around both sides, but it’s just like, I can’t imagine having that job. What a nightmare of a job.

Travis Kimmel:

It’s a terrible job. I don’t know if I would want it. I don’t know that I would do anything differently, but I would probably do it quicker, just because of where I think we are. The moves they’re making are not bad. They’re just doing it at an academic pace, not an operator pace. And I think that, that’s where the source of the damage will come from. I think that they’re going to create damage here with this tightening. Right now, if I were The Fed, I’d probably… Everyone’s going to hate this. I’d probably stop tightening. We’re pretty tight here. I think you just let it run out over four or five years, because there’s this choice here. Do we grow into the liquidity push, or do we squash it down and wash it out?

Travis Kimmel:

And there’s, all sorts of arguments, both sides. I think there are some good ones for either one, but I think the extreme political response here, it’s like, oh my God, inflation, this is going to be Weimar Germany. It’s not. And that feeling that we’re having about it could create something that is decidedly the opposite of Weimar Germany, if we’re not careful about our approach.

Jason Buck:

But also thinking about what you said about the SaaS cuts, is once again, going back to this, where we started with the idea of time horizons. And to me it’s like, I think this is what you’re saying, it’s basically, there’s a dichotomy in the economy right now, is service jobs are looking for employees, raising that wage price spiral on the minimum wage on the service side. But like you said, the tech SaaS companies here and Silicon Valley, they’re cutting as fast as possible, because that’s what they should be doing. But it’s interesting how then on Twitter or Fintwit, the value investors are looking at those tech companies, or even Coinbase, or especially the FTX Coinbase crypto side. And they’re like, look at these guys. They had the cut, they’re losing all these employees. They don’t know how to run a business. And you’re saying, no, they’re doing the right thing in this scenario. They have different time horizons.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. It’s the right move. Because if you don’t cut, there’s two things that can happen. One, you can die, because that P&L in the same way that SaaS businesses and to a greater extent, even payments businesses, they’re like super SaaS, they ramp really slow, but you have a ton of momentum behind them. If that forward, presumption of momentum is going to change, you need to be ahead of that change. So you need to start adjusting when you see that at the top of your pipeline. You get these deal pipelines through multi month long, and the minute you see weakness there, you got to adjust your plan, because otherwise your headcount growth and your spend will get way out of phase with revenue six months down the line. So the SaaS operator is a forecaster. Always. You’re always forecasting where your revenue’s going to be down the line. You’re trying to pull forward deals, get people to do yearly stuff and all that to manage cash flows.

Travis Kimmel:

But if you find yourself caught out, it can be deadly. And the second thing is, you could fail to capture an advantage. So let’s say you have plenty of cash. There’s no risk of whatever. If you’re in an environment where labor’s really tight, which we have been, and you are nobly heading into an environment where there will be a bigger labor pool to choose from, and you hire those hires in the tight environment, versus the future environment where it’s more competitive, you’ve lost an edge. You were hiring from a smaller set of potential candidates. And there’s lost edge in that. And so I think a really good SaaS operator almost has to have a macro view, because you can’t really get all the juice out of that business without it.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. Matthew and I were having this discussion yesterday is, the idea of VC’s, if anybody should be able to invest counter-cyclically, because they do so much better, but none of them do, right? They’re always just riding that ramp up. And it’s like, so as an operator of a SaaS company, it’s hard to invest counter-cyclically or turn those taps on and off, because like you’re saying, lagging effects and because it’s real human beings involved. So do you then hedge the treasury with being long treasuries, or derivatives that can give you a pop, like maybe you’re buying puts on the NASDAQ as a proxy with basis risk for that drawdown, that way you can actually invest counter-cyclically. Like you said, if you can hire into that trough, you can just out compete everybody. How do you think about that on operating the business? How do you operate your internal treasury balance sheet counter-cyclically with those kind of environments, but when you’re ramping up, you need ramp up. So it’s really hard to do that.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. The treasury function in software companies, it’s an interesting thing. I suspect it’s under optimized, but I would be wary of attempts to optimize it. So a good SaaS business can, even at scale can experience a hundred percent growth a year. What are you going to try to get a couple points on there? You’re talking psychotic growth already, by digging deeper into the specialization of operating. And so, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with just leaving the treasury in actual cash, for three month intervals or something. That’s fine.

Travis Kimmel:

Could you get more out of that? You could, but the risk of fucking that up is extreme, because if you lose money that could have been put toward a hundred percent year on your growth business, because you’re trying to get an extra three or four points, that’s bad. So I guess I would say there’s probably un-captured opportunity there that shouldn’t be sought. I think even the most clever treasurer, maybe you’re doing a little currency hedging. I don’t know. You have to be huge to make it worth that. How many headcounts? What do you buy? Four or five engineers? What are they going to do?

Jason Buck:

Or the way I would think about it, I think it is incredibly difficult, but if you’re having that a hundred percent year over year growth, if you carved off 2 to 3% to buy some [inaudible 00:42:40] the money puts on NASDAQ, that will give you some explosive convexity that then you can maintain that balance sheet or even maintain that payroll, if something like COVID hits. Or buy-up competitors or start going on a buying spree, and building out even the asset side. It’s something I think about often, but obviously I have a one track mind when it comes to that.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. I can see your arguments for doing it. Okay, so let’s say you’re the CEO of a company like that. And you advocate for that. And people are like, okay. How do you get caught out there?

Jason Buck:

It’s different if like you said, you’re not using CapEx and maybe because of treasuries, you need to use such large amounts of that cash, maybe it doesn’t make sense. But if you’re using derivatives that have enormous amount of convexity to them, you can carve off a little bit of that. And you’re going to take basis risk on NASDAQ, because it’s not going to perfectly align with SaaS, but it may give you an ability to balance your treasury or balance sheet, so it’s a little more fortified in case of a downturn. Because, we saw that downturn representative in NASDAQ.

Travis Kimmel:

We did. Yeah. And again, most of my experience is private companies, so there’s no tradable equity involved.

Jason Buck:

Right.

Travis Kimmel:

So I would say, there’s probably a pretty interesting business in outsourcing the treasury function for software companies. I just don’t think they should be doing it. There’s so much for the finance team to do, you can gain triple whatever you would get from this effort over time, from just being really good at running your P&L, keeping expenses tight. The finance team inside the company should probably not take this on. It’s low risk reward. But if you were to build a company that did this and offer an outsource treasury function for startups, I think that might be interesting.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. So like you said, it’s too much of a distraction internally. And then the last thing you want is your internal finance department to destroy the company while you have this high growth SaaS business.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. Because they get obsessed with macro.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. You’re like, just keep it in cash. I don’t want to fuck this up.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah, exactly. I just want to know it’s there. And along the lines of this, the debt markets are endlessly fascinating. I think some of the other stuff that gets overlooked is, there are probably things that are really close to treasuries that offer a little more. So the example I always use is JP Morgan bonds, two, three year, new issue stuff. You’re probably going to get an extra point on there over treasuries, and they probably are like treasuries. You know what I mean? I don’t think we’re going to let JP Morgan go under. We’ve tested that thesis and there’s no appetite for that. So I think you can do little things like that, that are relatively simple and relatively smart, and get a couple points with very little effort. And then if you’re doing anything more advanced than that, and you’re an operator, you really got to ask yourself whether you’re getting distracted by shiny object syndrome, at the finance level

Jason Buck:

Right. And you just don’t want to get too cute. You start getting into JP Morgan. It starts opening that Overton window. Maybe we could take a little more risk, I’ll get a few more points. It’s like, why are you trying to get a few points, where we have a hundred percent year over year growth? But that’s why-

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. I heard it was treasury that was in these yield coves. So they got venture money, all the LP money, and they’re putting a portion of their treasury into these defied yield coves. And you got to imagine these people are getting rinsed. That’s a career ender. If you do it wrong, you are getting set back a decade in your career.

Jason Buck:

Yeah. That’s why my partner, Taylor and I originally got together, because we were talking about Stablecoin’s back in 2017, 2018. And I was obsessed with them. But to me, what we build with our cockroach fund is a form of Stablecoin, right? If you hold all the world’s asset classes, you hold global stock, global bonds, you hedge it with long volatility and commodity trend, and you own gold and a little bit of crypto, to me, that’s the world’s inflation basket. We don’t need to debate CPI or core PCE. And then if I just hold all the world’s assets and rebalance, that is a stable coin, but more importantly is, you can lever it or de-lever it however you want it. So to me, it’s a beautiful thing to run a treasury with, because you could toggle down… Like if you had a 4 or 5% real return, with a 5 or 6 vol, with a 7 or 8% draw down, that’s a form of stable currency.

Jason Buck:

Because people don’t realize cash can go into… You had a 17% draw down in a single year on cash in the seventies, so people don’t realize how much cash can get hit. So you just want to outpace inflation. And that’s my argument. If you had a stable coin that outpaces inflation, that’s all you need your savings to do, which personally savings and for a company as your treasury is your savings, and that’s what you want to be. Incredibly boring.

Travis Kimmel:

It’s the whole goal of a hedge fund, right? Blunted beta.

Jason Buck:

Right.

Travis Kimmel:

That’s it.

Jason Buck:

Rebalance the betas and you’ll be just fine.

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. Just cut the tails off. And the thing, I think it’s very difficult right now for two reasons, there’s pressure on fees, which I think is very silly. And then there is this

Travis Kimmel:

… Very silly. And then there is this just crazy desire to chase those ride tails. And you can’t do both. I think through, on a big picture, look here, the fees are worth it for all of those reasons we were just talking about. Unless you’re like… You can’t afford to do it right. What? Are you going to go out there into the world and compete against a bunch of math PhDs? Maybe you’re smart, but you’re not that smart. They’re doing it full time. You don’t have that kind of bandwidth. And then-

Jason Buck:

I wonder, you’ve been part of… Go ahead. Sorry, sorry.

Travis Kimmel:

And then the other piece is if you’re chasing upside as an operator, you should be doing that on your daily job. You should not be doing that with your finances. It’s just bad. A lot of people, they put a big win on the board. They get their ass handed it to them afterwards.

Jason Buck:

So this leads to an interesting question. I remember Ferran Adria, the chef at El Bulli, used to talk about, if we didn’t have to eat food three times a day, it wasn’t a quotidian thing, then his art would be seen as a high art. It’d be like a painting on the wall. You’d go, “Wow. I can’t do that.” But because we eat three times a day, we figure, oh, I can be like Ferran Adria and I could be like El Bulli. And so I wonder like you’re saying, they transition from being an operator to then thinking about being an investor and looking at global macro, it is amazing to me how people think they can dabble in their part-time job and compete with the smartest minds in the world. But it’s still always enticing.

Travis Kimmel:

And you know what, it’s fine to go have a gamble. Get out there, try it a little bit. Get yourself a little trading account, ponce a little bit. On balance, you’re probably going to lose. But that’s a fine hobby. Yeah, it’s rational to think that you can now compete someone with even a small staff, who’s running a proper hedge fund.

Jason Buck:

I’m in these long volume derivatives guys, and it’s like, they’re staff are PhDs trying to figure out just this tiniest details. And then somebody thinks they can find stuff publicly available on the internet to compete with them and buy options. I’m like, “Don’t trade derivatives. It’s not DIY. That’s a terrible idea.”

Travis Kimmel:

Yeah. It’s a terrible idea. Yeah.

Jason Buck:

There’s one last question I had about SaaS before we go, to change subjects. So like you said, the right move at the company level as an operator is to cut quickly. But you’re a human being, and headcount has a way of saying, “But that’s real people.” It’s unbelievably crushing and keeps me up at night to manage people’s savings, but I can’t imagine having to fire dozens or hundreds of people that you’ve created friendships with. So how much does that weigh on you? Even though it’s the right move for the company, it’s a horrible move from a humanitarian perspective.

Travis Kimmel:

It’s like voting, where you don’t necessarily like one or the other, but sometimes you’ve just got to get out there and pick the lesser of two evils. If you’re cutting staff, it’s oftentimes from a belief that if you don’t, you’re effectively cutting all the staff. You’re saving jobs.

Jason Buck:

Exactly.

Travis Kimmel:

If it’s a real draw down. It sucks. Firing people sucks. When we were running our company, I think we would get flack for not spending the money fast enough, which sounds funny. But also, there’s a logic to it. If you’re in a run up, you really want to hit the gas as fast as you can or you’ll get beat on the field. But I think in the past, this was when was CEO of this company, I think we ran more defensively for this reason. We were understaffed, almost perpetually. Part of it was just I wanted more control. I didn’t want to ever have to raise money, because the first few you have to, and it’s just unpleasant. The dynamic is unpleasant. And then when you go raise money, when you don’t really need it, it’s a conversation amongst equals about the future of the company. Not someone grinding you for what they can get out of you. So I think that there’s a whole range of ways to play that. One is to just run a little tighter.

Travis Kimmel:

The other is, I think what I’m seeing a lot of people do right now is when you get a little whisper of doubt, you just cut the forward headcount. Which doesn’t really impact anybody, right?

Jason Buck:

Yeah.

Travis Kimmel:

You cut the forward headcount, if people leave, maybe you don’t those roles. It’s similar to the FED, letting treasuries roll off versus selling them. There’s a default of reduction in an operating business that doesn’t involve firing people just because you get some turnover. And the question is, are we going to replace that turnover? If the answer is no, there’s an organic shrinking that happens that doesn’t really involve ruining anyone’s day or firing people, any of that stuff. So there’s a wide range of controls to deploy there and I think that part of the advantage of looking farther out into the future when you’re a SaaS operator is you can pull those levers quickly, the easy ones. You cut back your marketing spend, that’s another classic one. You can tell when SaaS companies are feeling a little weird, be

Today's Hedge Fund Headlines:

Log In for More
Access Over 250K+ Industry Headlines, Posts and Updates
Not a member yet?

Join AlphaMaven

The Premier Alternative Investment
Research and Due Diligence Platform for Investors

Free Membership for Qualified Investors and Industry Participants
  • Easily Customize Content to Match Your Investment Preferences
  • Breaking News 24/7/365
  • Daily Newsletter & Indices
  • Alternative Investment Listings & LeaderBoards
  • Industry Research, Due Diligence, Videos, Webinars, Events, Press Releases, Market Commentary, Newsletters, Fact Sheets, Presentations, Investment Mandates, Video PitchBooks & More!
  • Company Directory
  • Contact Directory
  • Member Posts & Publications
  • Alpha University Video Series to Expand Investor Knowledge
  • AUM Accelerator Program (designed for investment managers)
  • Over 450K+ Industry Headlines, Posts and Updates
ALL ALPHAMAVEN CONTENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTENT POSTED BY MEMBERS DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINION OR BELIEFS OF ALPHAMAVEN AND HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY ALPHAMAVEN. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR INVESTMENT. THE MATERIAL PROVIDED HEREIN IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO SELL OR A SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY ANY INTERESTS OF ANY FUND OR ANY OTHER SECURITIES. ANY SUCH OFFERINGS CAN BE MADE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE INVESTMENT'S PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM. PRIOR TO INVESTING, INVESTORS ARE STRONGLY URGED TO REVIEW CAREFULLY THE PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM (INCLUDING THE RISK FACTORS DESCRIBED THEREIN), THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND THE SUBSCRIPTION DOCUMENTS, TO ASK SUCH QUESTIONS OF THE INVESTMENT MANAGER AS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE, AND TO DISCUSS ANY PROSPECTIVE INVESTMENT IN THE FUND WITH THEIR LEGAL AND TAX ADVISERS IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE SUITABILITY AND CONSEQUENCES OF AN INVESTMENT.