Posts Tagged ‘Understanding’

Angel Investor Definition and How It Works

Written by admin. Posted in A, Financial Terms Dictionary

Allowance for Bad Debt: Definition and Recording Methods

[ad_1]

What Is an Angel Investor?

An angel investor (also known as a private investor, seed investor or angel funder) is a high-net-worth individual who provides financial backing for small startups or entrepreneurs, typically in exchange for ownership equity in the company. Often, angel investors are found among an entrepreneur’s family and friends. The funds that angel investors provide may be a one-time investment to help the business get off the ground or an ongoing injection to support and carry the company through its difficult early stages.

Key Takeaways

  • An angel investor is usually a high-net-worth individual who funds startups at the early stages, often with their own money.
  • Angel investing is often the primary source of funding for many startups who find it more appealing than other, more predatory, forms of funding.
  • The support that angel investors provide startups fosters innovation which translates into economic growth.
  • These types of investments are risky and usually do not represent more than 10% of the angel investor’s portfolio.

Understanding Angel Investors

Angel investors are individuals who seek to invest at the early stages of startups. These types of investments are risky and usually do not represent more than 10% of the angel investor’s portfolio. Most angel investors have excess funds available and are looking for a higher rate of return than those provided by traditional investment opportunities.

Angel investors provide more favorable terms compared to other lenders, since they usually invest in the entrepreneur starting the business rather than the viability of the business. Angel investors are focused on helping startups take their first steps, rather than the possible profit they may get from the business. Essentially, angel investors are the opposite of venture capitalists.

Angel investors are also called informal investors, angel funders, private investors, seed investors or business angels. These are individuals, normally affluent, who inject capital for startups in exchange for ownership equity or convertible debt. Some angel investors invest through crowdfunding platforms online or build angel investor networks to pool capital together.

Origins of Angel Investors

The term “angel” came from the Broadway theater, when wealthy individuals gave money to propel theatrical productions. The term “angel investor” was first used by the University of New Hampshire’s William Wetzel, founder of the Center for Venture Research. Wetzel completed a study on how entrepreneurs gathered capital.

Who Can Be an Angel Investor?

Angel investors are normally individuals who have gained “accredited investor” status but this isn’t a prerequisite. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defines an “accredited investor” as one with a net worth of $1M in assets or more (excluding personal residences), or having earned $200k in income for the previous two years, or having a combined income of $300k for married couples. Conversely, being an accredited investor is not synonymous with being an angel investor.

Essentially these individuals both have the finances and desire to provide funding for startups. This is welcomed by cash-hungry startups who find angel investors to be far more appealing than other, more predatory, forms of funding.

Sources of Funding

Angel investors typically use their own money, unlike venture capitalists who take care of pooled money from many other investors and place them in a strategically managed fund.

Though angel investors usually represent individuals, the entity that actually provides the funds may be a limited liability company (LLC), a business, a trust or an investment fund, among many other kinds of vehicles.

Investment Profile

Angel investors who seed startups that fail during their early stages lose their investments completely. This is why professional angel investors look for opportunities for a defined exit strategy, acquisitions or initial public offerings (IPOs).

The effective internal rate of return for a successful portfolio for angel investors is approximately 22%. Though this may look good for investors and seem too expensive for entrepreneurs with early-stage businesses, cheaper sources of financing such as banks are not usually available for such business ventures. This makes angel investments perfect for entrepreneurs who are still financially struggling during the startup phase of their business.

Angel investing has grown over the past few decades as the lure of profitability has allowed it to become a primary source of funding for many startups. This, in turn, has fostered innovation which translates into economic growth.

[ad_2]

Source link

Adverse Selection: Definition, How It Works, and The Lemons Problem

Written by admin. Posted in A, Financial Terms Dictionary

Adverse Selection: Definition, How It Works, and The Lemons Problem

[ad_1]

What Is Adverse Selection?

Adverse selection refers generally to a situation in which sellers have information that buyers do not have, or vice versa, about some aspect of product quality. In other words, it is a case where asymmetric information is exploited. Asymmetric information, also called information failure, happens when one party to a transaction has greater material knowledge than the other party.

Typically, the more knowledgeable party is the seller. Symmetric information is when both parties have equal knowledge.

In the case of insurance, adverse selection is the tendency of those in dangerous jobs or high-risk lifestyles to purchase products like life insurance. In these cases, it is the buyer who actually has more knowledge (i.e., about their health). To fight adverse selection, insurance companies reduce exposure to large claims by limiting coverage or raising premiums.

Key Takeaways

  • Adverse selection is when sellers have information that buyers do not have, or vice versa, about some aspect of product quality.
  • It is thus the tendency of those in dangerous jobs or high-risk lifestyles to purchase life or disability insurance where chances are greater they will collect on it.
  • A seller may also have better information than a buyer about products and services being offered, putting the buyer at a disadvantage in the transaction.
  • Adverse selection can be seen in the markets for used cars or insurance.

Understanding Adverse Selection

Adverse selection occurs when one party in a negotiation has relevant information the other party lacks. The asymmetry of information often leads to making bad decisions, such as doing more business with less profitable or riskier market segments.

In the case of insurance, avoiding adverse selection requires identifying groups of people more at risk than the general population and charging them more money. For example, life insurance companies go through underwriting when evaluating whether to give an applicant a policy and what premium to charge.

Underwriters typically evaluate an applicant’s height, weight, current health, medical history, family history, occupation, hobbies, driving record, and lifestyle risks such as smoking; all these issues impact an applicant’s health and the company’s potential for paying a claim. The insurance company then determines whether to give the applicant a policy and what premium to charge for taking on that risk.

Consequences of Adverse Selection

A seller may have better information than a buyer about products and services being offered, putting the buyer at a disadvantage in the transaction. For example, a company’s managers may more willingly issue shares when they know the share price is overvalued compared to the real value; buyers can end up buying overvalued shares and lose money. In the secondhand car market, a seller may know about a vehicle’s defect and charge the buyer more without disclosing the issue.

The general consequence of adverse selection is that it increases costs since consumers lack information held by sellers or producers, creating an asymmetry in the market. This can also lower consumption as buyers may be wary of the quality of the products that are offered for sale. Or, it may exclude certain consumers that do not have access to or cannot afford to obtain information that could lead them to make better buying decisions.

One indirect effect of this is a negative impact on consumers’ health and well-being. If you buy a faulty product or dangerous medication because you don’t have good information, consuming these products can cause physical harm. Or, by refraining from buying certain healthcare products (e.g., vaccines), consumers may wrongly judge a safe intervention as overly risky.

Adverse Selection in Insurance

Because of adverse selection, insurers find that high-risk people are more willing to take out and pay greater premiums for policies. If the company charges an average price but only high-risk consumers buy, the company takes a financial loss by paying out more benefits or claims.

However, by increasing premiums for high-risk policyholders, the company has more money with which to pay those benefits. For example, a life insurance company charges higher premiums for race car drivers. A car insurance company charges more for customers living in high-crime areas. A health insurance company charges higher premiums for customers who smoke. In contrast, customers who do not engage in risky behaviors are less likely to pay for insurance due to increasing policy costs.

A prime example of adverse selection in regard to life or health insurance coverage is a smoker who successfully manages to obtain insurance coverage as a nonsmoker. Smoking is a key identified risk factor for life insurance or health insurance, so a smoker must pay higher premiums to obtain the same coverage level as a nonsmoker. By concealing their behavioral choice to smoke, an applicant is leading the insurance company to make decisions on coverage or premium costs that are adverse to the insurance company’s management of financial risk.

Another example of adverse selection in the case of auto insurance would be a situation where the applicant obtains insurance coverage based on providing a residence address in an area with a very low crime rate when the applicant actually lives in an area with a very high crime rate. Obviously, the risk of the applicant’s vehicle being stolen, vandalized, or otherwise damaged when regularly parked in a high-crime area is substantially greater than if the vehicle was regularly parked in a low-crime area.

Adverse selection might occur on a smaller scale if an applicant states that the vehicle is parked in a garage every night when it is actually parked on a busy street.

How to Minimize Adverse Selection

Adverse selection by increasing access to information, thus minimizing asymmetries. For consumers, the internet has greatly increased access while reducing costs. Crowdsourced information in the form of user reviews along with more formal reviews by bloggers or specialist websites are often free and warn potential buyers about otherwise obscure issues around quality.

Warranties and guarantees offered by sellers can also help, allowing consumers to use a product risk-free for a certain period to see if it has flaws or quality issues and the ability to return them without consequence if there are issues. Laws and regulations can also help, such as Lemon Laws in the used car industry. Federal regulatory authorities such as the FDA also help ensure that products are safe and effective for consumers.

Insurers reduce adverse selection by requesting medical information from applicants in the form of requiring paramedical examinations, querying doctors’ offices for medical records, and looking at one’s family history. This gives the insurance company more information that an applicant may fail to disclose on their own.

Moral Hazard vs. Adverse Selection

Like adverse selection, moral hazard occurs when there is asymmetric information between two parties, but where a change in the behavior of one party is exposed after a deal is struck. Adverse selection occurs when there’s a lack of symmetric information prior to a deal between a buyer and a seller.

Moral hazard is the risk that one party has not entered into the contract in good faith or has provided false details about its assets, liabilities, or credit capacity. For instance, in the investment banking sector, it may become known that government regulatory bodies will bail out failing banks; as a result, bank employees may take on excessive amounts of risk to score lucrative bonuses knowing that if their risky bets do not pan out, the bank will be saved anyhow.

The Lemons Problem

The lemons problem refers to issues that arise regarding the value of an investment or product due to asymmetric information possessed by the buyer and the seller.

The lemons problem was put forward in a research paper, “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” written in the late 1960s by George A. Akerlof, an economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The tag phrase identifying the problem came from the example of used cars Akerlof used to illustrate the concept of asymmetric information, as defective used cars are commonly referred to as lemons. The takeaway is that due to adverse selection, the only used cars left on the market will ultimately be lemons.

The lemons problem exists in the marketplace for both consumer and business products, and also in the arena of investing, related to the disparity in the perceived value of an investment between buyers and sellers. The lemons problem is also prevalent in financial sector areas, including insurance and credit markets. For example, in the realm of corporate finance, a lender has asymmetrical and less-than-ideal information regarding the actual creditworthiness of a borrower.

Why Is It Called Adverse Selection?

“Adverse” means unfavorable or harmful. Adverse selection is therefore when certain groups are at higher-risk because they lack full information. In fact, they are selected (or choose to select) to enter into a transaction precisely because they are at a disadvantage (or advantage).

How Does Adverse Selection Impact Markets?

Adverse selection arises from information asymmetries. In economic theory, markets are assumed to be efficient and that everybody has full and “perfect” information. When some have more information than others, they can take advantage of those less-informed, often to their detriment. This creates market inefficiencies that can increase prices or prevent transactions from occurring.

What Is an Example of Adverse Selection in Trading and Investing?

In stock markets, there are some natural information asymmetries. For example, companies that issue shares know more about their internal finances and earnings before the general public does. This can lead to cases of insider trading, where those in-the-know profit from stock trades before public announcements are made (which is an illegal practice).

Another asymmetry involves the inventories of market makers and some institutional traders. While large holders of a company’s stock are made public, this information is only disseminated on a quarterly basis. This means that these players in the market may have a particular “axe to grind” – for example, a strong desire or need to buy or sell – that is not known by the investing public.

The Bottom Line

Contrary to assumptions made by mainstream economic and financial models, information is not symmetrically accessible and available to all actors in a market. In particular, sellers and producers often have far more information about what they are selling than do buyers. This information asymmetry can lead to market inefficiencies via what is known as adverse selection. In insurance markets, applicants have more information about themselves than do insurers, meaning that they withhold key information about being higher-risk.

[ad_2]

Source link

Aggressive Investment Strategy: Definition, Benefits, and Risks

Written by admin. Posted in A, Financial Terms Dictionary

[ad_1]

What is an Aggressive Investment Strategy?

An aggressive investment strategy typically refers to a style of portfolio management that attempts to maximize returns by taking a relatively higher degree of risk. Strategies for achieving higher than average returns typically emphasize capital appreciation as a primary investment objective, rather than income or safety of principal. Such a strategy would therefore have an asset allocation with a substantial weighting in stocks and possibly little or no allocation to bonds or cash.

Aggressive investment strategies are typically thought to be suitable for young adults with smaller portfolio sizes. Because a lengthy investment horizon enables them to ride out market fluctuations, and losses early in one’s career have less impact than later, investment advisors do not consider this strategy suitable for anyone else but young adults unless such a strategy is applied to only a small portion of one’s nest-egg savings. Regardless of the investor’s age, however, a high tolerance for risk is an absolute prerequisite for an aggressive investment strategy.

Gunslinger Portfolio Managers

Key Takeaway

  • Aggressive investing accepts more risk in pursuit of greater return.
  • Aggressive portfolio management may achieve its aims through one or more of many strategies including asset selection and asset allocation.
  • Investor trends after 2012 showed a preference away from aggressive strategies and active management and towards passive index investing.

Understanding Aggressive Investment Strategy

The aggressiveness of an investment strategy depends on the relative weight of high-reward, high-risk asset classes, such as equities and commodities, within the portfolio.

For example, Portfolio A which has an asset allocation of 75% equities, 15% fixed income, and 10% commodities would be considered quite aggressive, since 85% of the portfolio is weighted to equities and commodities. However, it would still be less aggressive than Portfolio B, which has an asset allocation of 85% equities and 15% commodities.

Even within the equity component of an aggressive portfolio, the composition of stocks can have a significant bearing on its risk profile. For instance, if the equity component only consists of blue-chip stocks, it would be considered less risky than if the portfolio only held small-capitalization stocks. If this is the case in the earlier example, Portfolio B could arguably be considered less aggressive than Portfolio A, even though it has 100% of its weight in aggressive assets.

Yet another aspect of an aggressive investment strategy has to do with allocation. A strategy that simply divided all available money equally into 20 different stocks could be a very aggressive strategy, but dividing all money equally into just 5 different stocks would be more aggressive still.

Aggressive Investment strategies may also include a high turnover strategy, seeking to chase stocks that show high relative performance in a short time period. The high turnover may create higher returns, but could also drive higher transaction costs, thus increasing the risk of poor performance.

Aggressive Investment Strategy and Active Management

An aggressive strategy needs more active management than a conservative “buy-and-hold” strategy, since it is likely to be much more volatile and could require frequent adjustments, depending on market conditions. More rebalancing would also be required to bring portfolio allocations back to their target levels. Volatility of the assets could lead allocations to deviate significantly from their original weights. This extra work also drives higher fees as the portfolio manager may require more staff to manage all such positions.

Recent years have seen significant pushback against active investing strategies. Many investors have pulled their assets out of hedge funds, for example, due to those managers’ underperformance. Instead, some have chosen to place their money with passive managers. These managers adhere to investing styles that often employ managing index funds for strategic rotation. In these cases, portfolios often mirror a market index, such as the S&P 500.

[ad_2]

Source link

Altman Z-Score: What It Is, Formula, How to Interpret Results

Written by admin. Posted in A, Financial Terms Dictionary

Altman Z-Score: What It Is, Formula, How to Interpret Results

[ad_1]

What Is the Altman Z-Score?

The Altman Z-score is the output of a credit-strength test that gauges a publicly traded manufacturing company’s likelihood of bankruptcy.

Key Takeaways

  • The Altman Z-score is a formula for determining whether a company, notably in the manufacturing space, is headed for bankruptcy. 
  • The formula takes into account profitability, leverage, liquidity, solvency, and activity ratios. 
  • An Altman Z-score close to 0 suggests a company might be headed for bankruptcy, while a score closer to 3 suggests a company is in solid financial positioning.

Understanding the Altman Z-Score

The Altman Z-score, a variation of the traditional z-score in statistics, is based on five financial ratios that can be calculated from data found on a company’s annual 10-K report. It uses profitability, leverage, liquidity, solvency, and activity to predict whether a company has a high probability of becoming insolvent.

NYU Stern Finance Professor Edward Altman developed the Altman Z-score formula in 1967, and it was published in 1968. Over the years, Altman has continued to reevaluate his Z-score. From 1969 until 1975, Altman looked at 86 companies in distress, then 110 from 1976 to 1995, and finally 120 from 1996 to 1999, finding that the Z-score had an accuracy of between 82% and 94%.

In 2012, he released an updated version called the Altman Z-score Plus that one can use to evaluate public and private companies, manufacturing and non-manufacturing companies, and U.S. and non-U.S. companies. One can use Altman Z-score Plus to evaluate corporate credit risk. The Altman Z-score has become a reliable measure of calculating credit risk.

How to Calculate the Altman Z-Score

One can calculate the Altman Z-score as follows:

Altman Z-Score = 1.2A + 1.4B + 3.3C + 0.6D + 1.0E

Where:

  • A = working capital / total assets
  • B = retained earnings / total assets
  • C = earnings before interest and tax / total assets
  • D = market value of equity / total liabilities
  • E = sales / total assets

A score below 1.8 means it’s likely the company is headed for bankruptcy, while companies with scores above 3 are not likely to go bankrupt. Investors can use Altman Z-scores to determine whether they should buy or sell a stock if they’re concerned about the company’s underlying financial strength. Investors may consider purchasing a stock if its Altman Z-Score value is closer to 3 and selling or shorting a stock if the value is closer to 1.8.

In more recent years, however, a Z-Score closer to 0 indicates a company may be in financial trouble. In a lecture given in 2019 titled “50 Years of the Altman Score,” Professor Altman himself noted that recent data has shown that 0—not 1.8—is the figure at which investors should worry about a company’s financial strength. The two-hour lecture is available to view for free on YouTube.

2008 Financial Crisis

In 2007, the credit ratings of specific asset-related securities had been rated higher than they should have been. The Altman Z-score indicated that the companies’ risks were increasing significantly and may have been heading for bankruptcy.

Altman calculated that the median Altman Z-score of companies in 2007 was 1.81. These companies’ credit ratings were equivalent to a B. This indicated that 50% of the firms should have had lower ratings, were highly distressed and had a high probability of becoming bankrupt.

Altman’s calculations led him to believe a crisis would occur and there would be a meltdown in the credit market. He believed the crisis would stem from corporate defaults, but the meltdown, which brought about the 2008 financial crisis, began with mortgage-backed securities (MBS). However, corporations soon defaulted in 2009 at the second-highest rate in history.

How Is the Altman Z-Score Calculated?

The Altman Z-score, a variation of the traditional z-score in statistics, is based on five financial ratios that can be calculated from data found on a company’s annual 10-K report. The formula for Altman Z-Score is 1.2*(working capital / total assets) + 1.4*(retained earnings / total assets) + 3.3*(earnings before interest and tax / total assets) + 0.6*(market value of equity / total liabilities) + 1.0*(sales / total assets).

How Should an Investor Interpret the Altman Z-Score?

Investors can use Altman Z-score Plus to evaluate corporate credit risk. A score below 1.8 signals the company is likely headed for bankruptcy, while companies with scores above 3 are not likely to go bankrupt. Investors may consider purchasing a stock if its Altman Z-Score value is closer to 3 and selling, or shorting, a stock if the value is closer to 1.8. In more recent years, Altman has stated a score closer to 0 rather than 1.8 indicates a company is closer to bankruptcy.

Did the Altman Z-Score Predict the 2008 Financial Crisis?

In 2007, Altman’s Z-score indicated that the companies’ risks were increasing significantly. The median Altman Z-score of companies in 2007 was 1.81, which is very close to the threshold that would indicate a high probability of bankruptcy. Altman’s calculations led him to believe a crisis would occur that would stem from corporate defaults, but the meltdown, which brought about the 2008 financial crisis, began with mortgage-backed securities (MBS); however, corporations soon defaulted in 2009 at the second-highest rate in history.

[ad_2]

Source link