The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge (Stephen Hawking)

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so (Mark Twain)

Invest with smart knowledge and objective odds

NEW$ & VIEW$ (8 JUNE 2016): The Complacent Fed;

THE COMPLACENT FED

During her Monday speech, while using the words “uncertain” and “uncertainties” 20 times, even qualifying “uncertainties” as “considerable” and “sizeable”, Mrs. Yellen concluded that she is seeing

good reasons to expect that the positive forces supporting employment growth and higher inflation will continue to outweigh the negative ones”

Yet, the Labor Market Conditions Index which uses her own 19 datasets peaked in October 2015, 7 months ago, turned negative in January and has been falling for the last 5 months.

image

Difficult to find “positive forces supporting employment growth” on her own dashboard. These are conditions to ease, not to tighten.

Maybe the Fed’s own Beige Book gives her comfort since the June 1st Beige Book described the economy as expanding at a “modest or moderate” pace in 7 of the 12 districts, about the same as in recent editions. In general, optimism regarding the economic outlook far outweighed pessimism throughout the Beige Book, as it has for the past two years or so…

But LPL Financial Research offers its own analysis of the Beige Book:

We believe the Beige Book is best interpreted by measuring how the descriptors change over time. (…) To evaluate the sentiment behind the entire Beige
Book collage of data, we created our proprietary Beige Book Barometer (BBB). The Beige Book Barometer is a diffusion index that measures the number of times the word “strong” or its variations appear in the Beige Book less the number of times the word “weak“ or its variations appear. When the Beige Book Barometer is declining, it suggests that the economy is deteriorating.

image

Here in 2016, although oil prices have rebounded more than 80% off the February 2016 lows, oil production has continued to fall, and the continued weakness in the oil patch has weighed on the overall barometer.

Pointing up However, most of the decline in the BBB since its 2015 peak has come in the non-energy-producing districts of the U.S., suggesting that there has been some spillover from lower oil prices and lower oil production to other parts of the economy.

Mrs. Yellen must know that her staff is positively biased:

image

Why the focus on tightening? Samuel Rines, Senior Economist and Portfolio Strategist at Avalon Advisors in Houston, TX​. shares his views on that:

Why the Fed Needs to Make a Policy Error

(…) By so consistently telegraphing interest-rate hikes, the Fed has backed itself into a corner. It may be a policy error to continue raising rates at this point, but backing away from higher rates could spark a crisis of confidence, which would be even worse. The Fed is setting up to commit a policy error, and an error may be the best possible outcome now. (…)

Fed presidents frequently reiterate the primacy of data dependency in their policy-determination process, while emphasizing the lack of a preset course for future policy. But the language is typically unidirectional—always focused on what data are needed to justify a rate hike. No one talks about what would constitute evidence for a reversal. And this creates complications for the Fed’s ability to prudently conduct both present and future monetary policy. (…)

The reasoning to normalize policy is more that “it must be done” than that “it needs to be done.”

The logic as to why the Fed must remain on a tightening path is that it cannot afford to lose credibility. More accurately, it cannot afford to lose credibility in that way. By committing the policy error of misreading the economy, and significantly slowing an economic expansion, the Fed risks less credibility than it would by backtracking on it policy path. The Fed must maintain faith in the execution of its commitments and policies. (…)

Unconventional policy relies heavily on Fed credibility. Credibility allows the Fed to commit to achieving a certain outcome, and have markets believe it will happen. (…)

At the pace of the Fed’s own dot plot, interest rates will rise on a trajectory that almost guarantees an error. But it is an error the Fed needs to commit. Regardless of whether the policies are good or bad, the Fed cannot risk its credibility—credibility is critical to the efficacy of the tools it will use in the next downturn. The Fed must commit an error.

Weak Productivity, Rising Wages Putting Pressure on U.S. Companies U.S. companies are facing a toxic combination of dismal productivity growth, accelerating wages and sluggish demand, raising the risk they will slow hiring, cut spending further and weaken an already-fragile economy.

Labor productivity, or the amount of goods and services employees produce per hour worked, fell at a 0.6% annual rate in the first quarter, the Labor Department said Tuesday. (…)

Hourly compensation, encompassing everything from salaries to retirement benefits and health care costs, surged at a 3.9% annual rate in the first quarter, Tuesday’s report showed. It rose 3.7% over the past year, marking the biggest annual gain in two years. (…)

When wage compensation outruns productivity, the result is an acceleration in labor costs per unit of output. In the first quarter, those costs rose 4.5% at a yearly rate and 3% from a year earlier. If companies can’t boost productivity, they must either absorb the costs in their profit margins or raise prices.

Corporate profits are being squeezed as a result, and the worry is that companies will slow hiring and further slash spending.

A different worry for the Fed is that firms will react to higher labor costs by raising prices, pushing inflation above the central bank’s 2% target. (…)

  large image (Haver Analytics

U.S. Consumer Credit Increased at 4.49% Pace in April

Outstanding consumer credit, a measure of nonmortgage debt, rose by a seasonally adjusted $13.42 billion in April from the prior month, the Federal Reserve said Tuesday. The 4.49% seasonally adjusted annual growth rate is a slowdown from March’s downwardly revised 9.57% pace.

Revolving credit outstanding, mostly credit cards, rose at a 2.08% annual pace in April, the slowest pace since January. That is a steep drop-off from a downwardly revised rate of 13.34% in March, its fastest pace since February 2001.

Nonrevolving credit outstanding, including student and auto loans, rose at a 5.35% annual pace in April compared with March’s downwardly revised 8.22% growth rate. (…)

large image(Haver Analytics)

Household Spending Spurs Eurozone Growth

(…) The European Union’s statistics agency said the combined gross domestic products of the eurozone’s 19 members was 0.6% higher in the first quarter than in the final three months of 2015, and 1.7% higher than the first three months of last year. Eurostat had previously estimated that the economy grew by 0.5% on the quarter, and 1.5% on the year. On an annualized basis, the economy grew by 2.2%.

Eurostat also raised its growth estimate for the fourth quarter of last year, and now calculates that GDP increased by 0.4% on the quarter and 1.7% on the year, having previously estimated growth at 0.3% and 1.6% respectively. (…)

The pickup in growth during the first quarter was driven by an increase in household spending, which was up 0.6% from the final three months of 2015, doubling its growth rate in that latter period and recording its fastest expansion since the final quarter of 2014.

Rising government and investment spending also contributed to growth, while weaker export growth was a drag on the recovery. (…)

  • Low Yields Go Lower in Europe Yields on the 10-year government debt of Germany and the U.K. fell to all-time lows, a stark demonstration of the modern era of scant inflation, weak growth and outsize monetary policy.
China central bank holds line on growth forecast but sees more pain to come

China’s central bank slashed its forecast for exports on Wednesday, predicting a second straight annual fall in shipments, but said the economy will still grow 6.8 percent this year.

The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) also warned in its mid-year work report that the government’s push to reduce debt levels and overcapacity could increase bond default risks and make it more difficult for companies to raise funds. (…)

The report was released shortly after monthly data showed China’s exports fell an annual 4.1 percent in May, more than expected and the 10th decline in the past 12 months.

Imports were more encouraging, declining only marginally and much less than expected, pointing to improving domestic demand and adding to views that the economy may be slowly stabilising. Preliminary commodity trade data showed sharp rises in imports of copper and iron ores.

However, some economists cautioned that imports from Hong Kong may have once again been inflated by fake trade invoicing to disguise speculation on the yuan, which came under renewed depreciation pressure last month as the U.S. dollar surged. (…)

Despite cutting its forecast for exports to minus 1 percent from growth of 3.1 percent, the PBOC saw a domestic recovery remaining on track.

It upgraded its forecast for fixed-asset investment growth to 11 percent, an increase of 0.2 percentage points from estimates it made late last year. (…)

World Bank Cuts Growth Outlook The World Bank cut its forecast for this year’s growth of the global economy, citing troubles in developed and developing nations alike.

The bank’s latest projection pegs global growth at 2.4%, down from the 2.9% forecast in January and slower than last year’s weak pace. The bank also cut its forecast for growth in 2017 to 2.8% from 3.1%.

“The global outlook faces pronounced risks of another stretch of muted growth,” said World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu. “A wide range of risks threaten to derail the recovery.”

Commodity exporters such as Brazil, Russia, Nigeria and Angola suffered some of the largest downward revisions. Governments have been forced to cut spending due to the price collapse in metals, energy and other commodities.Weakening currencies also are forcing central banks to raise interest rates to curb rampant inflation. And higher borrowing costs are weighing on investment and putting many company balance sheets deep into the red.

The bank pared its projections for the world’s largest economy, the U.S. A wounded energy sector, strong dollar and anemic international demand contributed to a 0.8-percentage-point cut in growth expectations—to 1.9%—for the year. (…)

Policy makers’ room to maneuver is shrinking. Although debt levels have moderated in many advanced economies, central banks are starting to run out of monetary-policy options. And politicians are reluctant to use government balance sheets to fund major injections of stimulus.

Options are even fewer among emerging-market exporters. Debt levels are rising, budget deficits are deepening and central banks are having to raise rates instead of cutting them to temper rising prices as their currencies weaken. Those countries, such as Angola, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, South Africa and Venezuela, are running average budget deficits of 5% of gross domestic product.

One major indicator of global weakness—trade growth—remains muted at 3.1%, well below precrisis trends. (…)

One bright note in the outlook: Emerging-market importers aren’t suffering the same downturn as exporters. In countries such as India, Hungary, Thailand and Vietnam, government deficits are actually lower than the bank forecast two years ago and debt levels as a share of economic output are falling. 

OECD lead indicator flags first signs of growth stabilization

Signs are emerging that a downturn in the United States and China, the world’s two biggest economies, may have bottomed out, the OECD’s monthly leading indicator showed on Wednesday.

The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said its leading indicator (CLI) for the United States improved to 98.95 in April from 98.93 in March, the first increase in the reading since July 2014.

The index for China rose to 98.41 in April from 98.38 in March, its second consecutive monthly increase. The reading fell below the 100 mark in October 2014.

The OECD said its indicators showed stable growth momentum in the euro zone as a whole, including Germany and France, while the reading for Britain pointed to easing growth.

The index for the euro zone fell to 100.38 in April from 100.42 in March but has been above its long-term average of 100 since October 2013.

The OECD was also positive on the outlook for Brazil and Russia, which have suffered from a sharp downturn driven by a collapse in commodities prices.

“Amongst major emerging economies, CLIs for Brazil and Russia confirm the signs of positive change in growth momentum flagged in last month’s assessment,” the OECD said.  image

image 

HAVE A GOOD SUMMER!

image(Bluehawk Wealth Management)

Chinese Jets Intercept U.S. Spy Plane Over East China Sea The U.S. says one of two Chinese J-10 fighters intercepting a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance plane on routine patrol Tuesday closed on it at an “unsafe excessive rate.”

NEW$ & VIEW$ (2 MAY 2016): Sell in May?

U.S. Personal Income Growth Outpaces Spending

Personal income increased 0.4% during March (4.2% y/y) following a 0.1% uptick in February, revised from 0.2%. A 0.3% increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Wages & salaries increased 0.4% (4.7% y/y) following a 0.1% slip. (…)

Disposable personal income increased 0.4% (4.0% y/y) following February’s 0.1% rise. Adjusted for price increases, take-home pay rose 0.3% (3.1% y/y) following 0.2% increases in the prior two months.

Personal consumption expenditures during March increased a minimal 0.1% (3.5% y/y) following two months of 0.2% gain. February’s rise was revised from 0.1%. The latest increase fell short of expectations for a 0.2% rise. Spending on durable goods declined 0.6% (+1.3% y/y), leaving Q1 growth at -2.7% (AR). Motor vehicle & parts purchases fell 2.0% (-4.8% y/y), down for the fourth consecutive month. Spending on furniture & appliances offset this decline with a 0.4% rise (3.1% y/y), while recreational goods & vehicles purchases rose 0.2% (6.1% y/y). Nondurable goods spending advanced 0.6% (0.4% y/y), but quarterly purchases declined 4.7% (AR). Clothing & footwear buying declined 0.5% (+0.3% y/y), but gasoline purchases increased 4.5% with higher prices (-17.6% y/y). Food & beverage purchases rose 0.4% (1.0% y/y). In the services area, outlays rose 0.1% (4.8% y/y), the gain held back by a 0.4% decline (+2.8% y/y) in spending on housing & utilities. Health care outlays rose 0.4% (4.5% y/y) while recreation buying gained 0.3% (8.8% y/y). Spending at restaurants & hotels fell 0.6% (+5.5% y/y).

Adjusted for price inflation, personal consumption expenditures remained constant m/m (2.6% y/y) after a 0.3% increase. During Q1, spending rose at a 1.9% annual rate, the weakest rise in a year.

The personal savings rate held steady at 5.4%, but February’s rate was lessened to 5.1%. January’s rate also was revised down to 5.2%. The Q1 savings rate of 5.2% equaled the level in Q1’15. The level of personal savings rose 12.7% y/y in March.

 large image large image

large image
image
U.S. Chides Five Economic Powers Over Policies The Obama administration delivered a shot across the bow to Asia’s leading exporters and Germany for their economic policies and warned that a number of major economies around the globe could face intense pressure to engage in currency interventions to counter slow growth.

(…) The U.S. Treasury Department, in its semiannual currency report to Congress, called out China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Germany for relying on policies it says threaten to damage the U.S. and the global economy.

The countries are cited in a new name-and-shame list that can trigger sanctions against offending trade partners under fresh powers Congress granted last year to address economic policies that threaten U.S. industries.

U.S. officials are increasingly concerned other countries aren’t doing enough to boost demand at home, relying too heavily on exports to bolster growth. (…)

Oil prices retreat from 2016 highs on OPEC output boost Oil prices retreated from 2016 highs on Monday as rising production in the Middle East outweighed a decline in U.S. output and a sliding dollar.

Crude production by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries rose in April to 32.64 million barrels per day (bpd), close to the highest level in recent history.

Russia, the biggest exporter outside OPEC, also increased monthly crude for seaborne exports by more than 7 percent to 3.117 million bpd in April. (…)

The U.S. oil rig count fell for the sixth week last week, which analysts said showed the price of oil had not risen enough to lure shale producers back. (…)

“In a normal economic environment, we will see the price direction is rather upwards than downwards,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said on Sunday during a G7 meeting of energy ministers in Japan.

Non-OPEC output is set to fall by more than 700,000 bpd this year, the biggest decline in around 20 years, he said.

While Morgan Stanley warned that an emerging gasoline glut threatened refinery demand for crude, Birol said the draw in global stockpiles should start toward the end of the year.

At the G7 meeting, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said U.S. oil production would likely fall 600,000 bpd this year from 2015, when output peaked around 9.6 million bpd.

EARNINGS WATCH

Factset’s weekly summary:

Overall, 62% of the companies in the S&P 500 have reported earnings to date for the first quarter. Of these companies, 74% have reported actual EPS above the mean EPS estimate, 7% have reported actual EPS equal to the mean EPS estimate, and 18% have reported actual EPS below the mean EPS estimate. The percentage of companies reporting EPS above the mean EPS estimate is above both the 1-year (69%) average and the 5-year (67%) average.

In aggregate, companies are reporting earnings that are 4.1% above expectations. This surprise percentage is slightly below both the 1-year (+4.2%) average and the 5-year (+4.2%) average.

The blended (combines actual results for companies that have reported and estimated results for companies yet to report) year-over-year earnings decline for Q1 2016 is -7.6%, which is smaller than the expected earnings decline of -8.7% at the end of the quarter (March 31). Seven sectors are reporting a year-over-year decline in earnings, led by the Energy and Materials sectors. Three sectors are reporting year-over-year growth in earnings, led by the Consumer Discretionary and Telecom Services sectors.

If the Energy sector is excluded, the blended earnings decline for the S&P 500 would improve to -2.4% from -7.6% [-3.6% last week].

In terms of revenues, 55% of companies have reported actual sales above estimated sales and 45% have reported actual sales below estimated sales. The percentage of companies reporting sales above estimates is above the 1-year (50%) average but below the 5-year average (56%).

In aggregate, companies are reporting sales that are 0.2% above expectations. This surprise percentage is below both the 1-year (+0.6%) average and above the 5-year (+0.7%) average.

The blended sales decline for Q1 2016 is -1.3%, which is larger the estimated sales decline of -1.1% at the end of the quarter (March 31). Five sectors are reporting year-over-year growth in revenues, led by the Telecom Services and Health Care sectors. Five sectors are reporting a year-over-year decline in revenues, led by the Energy and Materials sectors.

If the Energy sector is excluded, the blended revenue growth rate for the S&P 500 would jump to 1.6% from -1.3% [unchanged from last week].

At this point in time, 54 companies in the index have issued EPS guidance for Q2 2016. Of these 54 companies, 36 have issued negative EPS guidance and 18 have issued positive EPS guidance. The percentage of companies issuing negative EPS guidance is 67% (36 out of 54), which is below the 5-year average of 73%.

During the month of April, analysts lowered earnings estimates for companies in the S&P 500 for the quarter. The Q2 bottom-up EPS estimate (which is an aggregation of the EPS estimates for all the companies in the index) dropped by 1.8% (to $28.90 from $29.43) during this period. During the past year (4 quarters), the average decline in the bottom-up EPS estimate during the first month of a quarter has been 2.8%. During the past five years (20 quarters), the average decline in the bottom-up EPS estimate during the first month of a quarter has been 2.2%. During the past ten years, (40 quarters), the average decline in the bottom-up EPS estimate during the first month of a quarter has been 2.3%.

At the sector level, the Information Technology has recorded the largest percentage decline in the bottom-up EPS estimate for Q2 during the first month of the quarter at -9.4% (to $9.06 from $10.01). This sector has also recorded the largest decline in value of all ten sectors over this time frame at -4.6% (to 703.04 from 737.12).

Corporate guidance was 76% negative last week as 26 of the 34 companies issuing Q2 guidance guided down. Negative guidance was mostly prevalent in IT (6), Financials (6) and Industrials (6). Four of the eight positive guidance were from Health Care companies.

Thomson Reuters’ tally now says Q1 EPS will decline 5.7% YoY, from –7.1% On April 1 and –6.1% on April 28. Q2 EPS are seen down 3.0% (-2.9% last week) while Q3 and Q4 are expected up 2.7% and 9.6% respectively (unchanged). Full year EPS are forecast up 0.7% (+0.8% last week).

In all, two-thirds of the way, the earnings season seems unlikely to provide much earnings tailwind until Q3 and, particularly, Q4. Trailing EPS should decline from $117.46 to $116.50 after Q1 and be roughly unchanged after Q2. IF TR’s calculations are met, trailing EPS could rise to $118.40 after Q4, almost a year from now.

The S&P 500 Index continues to hover around the Rule of 20 fair value of 2074 with its weekly close at 2065 or 19.8 on the Rule of 20 scale.

image

Investors sentiment has moved to neutral per II, in sync with equity markets (via Ed Yardeni)

image

What’s not in sync is the trend in valuation with economic surprises. The last time we had the same opposite trends was in the first half of 2015…Rising P/Es occur when inflation declines and/or when investor enthusiasm rises which generally feeds off positive economic surprises. Currently, there seems to be scant stuff to lift spirits, investors’ or voters’ for that matter…

image

Note that the economy has not surprised positively for more than 15 months, an exceptionally long period which speaks volumes about the “surprisingly” weak world economies.

U.S. companies starting to see relief from pains of strong dollar

(…) Companies including Whirlpool Corp, Johnson & Johnson, and Xerox Corp have told investors over the last two weeks that they see the pain from the dollar’s two-year rally easing, allowing them in some cases to beat earnings estimates and raise their outlooks for the rest of the year.

Less well-known companies are benefiting, too: insect repellent company Rollins Inc said the weaker dollar was a key reason why it beat estimates when it announced its quarterly results Wednesday, while medical supply maker C.R. Bard Inc cited the weakening of the dollar when it announced that it was raising its guidance for the year. (…)

Johnson & Johnson, for instance, said the strong dollar took a 3.3 percent slice out of global sales in its first quarter, half of the impact from the quarter before. Its shares rose 2.7 percent after it reported its results, hitting a record high.

Overall, 72 percent of U.S. multinational companies – those which would see the largest impact from currency fluctuations – have beat earnings per share estimates this quarter, in large part because of the dollar’s decline, according to Thomas Lee, managing partner at Fundstrat Global Advisors.

In a sign that the dollar’s slide should continue to help for the remainder of the year, analysts have raised their earnings per share estimates for 57 percent of multinationals, by an average of nearly 1 percentage point, he said.

The dollar’s retreat comes on the heels of the fourth quarter of 2015, when currency translation took $33.94 billion out of North American company revenues, the worst negative impact in nearly five years, according to research firm FireApps. (…)

US stocks in worst week since February Investor unease sees valuations snap back after surge from February lows

A two-day sell-off in US equity markets has put the benchmark S&P 500 nearer to negative territory for the year as the momentum that boosted the index near its peak has faded.

The index — which counts $2.1tn of investments linked directly to it — suffered its worst weekly performance since the market trough in February, although last minute buying kept the S&P 500 positive for the month of April. (…)

For the week, the S&P 500 slipped 1.3 per cent while the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite declined 2.7 per cent under the weight of a sliced Apple valuation. (…)

Sell Stocks in May? Tempting but Not So Smart

(…) It worked last year. If an investor sold the S&P 500 on the Friday before Memorial Day and rebought the index the Tuesday after Labor Day, she would have avoided a 7.4% decline.

Otherwise, the benefits are a bit fuzzier. Stocks gained during the summers of 2012 and 2014. In 2011 and 2013, they fell. (…)

Since 1970, the S&P 500 has gained 1% on average in the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day, according to an analysis by Ana Avramovic, trading strategist at Credit Suisse.Stocks rose during 30 of those summers by an average of 5.6%. The declines were more painful, averaging 8% in the 15 years stocks declined between Memorial Day and Labor Day, Ms. Avramovic’s analysis shows. (…)

During the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day, daily stock-trading volumes on the New York Stock Exchange tend to fall about 3.1% below yearly averages, according to data going back to 1996. Fewer shares changing hands means swings in the stock market can be sharper. (…)

Ben Jacobsen, a finance professor at TIAS School for Business and Society in the Netherlands, said he makes it an annual routine to take a much longer trading hiatus, based on his own research into seasonal market trends.

He and his colleagues found that world-wide, investors averaged 4.5% better returns between November and April than between May and Halloween.

The so-called Halloween effect of improved seasonal performance persists in 82 of 109 stock markets studied.

In the U.K., where data goes back three centuries, investors who follow that strategy for five years have an 80% chance of beating the market, based on his historical analysis. Over 10 years, it becomes a 90% chance. His results exclude transaction costs and taxes.

He has been investing according to the strategy since the 1990s, and currently commits about half his portfolio, investing the other half in stocks held long-term. In the U.S., he keeps his money in low-volatility exchange-traded funds for the summer. In Europe, he goes to cash.

“It doesn’t make you rich,” he said. “But it makes you richer a little bit faster than other people.”

Analysts at Northern Trust Asset Management found in a 2012 report titled “Sell in May…and Pay!” that investors face significant downsides getting in and out of the market around the summer.

Even if the time period is extended to include Halloween, U.S. capital-gains taxes alone erode the value of the approach, they found.

Meanwhile, investors also face transaction fees, missed opportunities and confusion about when to buy back in. (…)

The Blog of Horan Capital Advisors has more on this:

(…) In an article from Chart of the Day from several years ago, it is noted,

“The stock market is about to enter what has historically been the weakest half of the year. Today’s chart illustrates that investing in the S&P 500 during the six months of November through and including April accounted for the vast majority of S&P 500 gains since 1950 (see blue line). While the May through October period has seen mild gains during major bull markets (i.e. 1950-56 & 1982-97), the overall subpar performance during the months of May through October is noteworthy. Hence the saying, ‘sell in May and walk away.'”

Source: Chart of the Day

The above chart provides pretty clear evidence of the strength of the market from November to April or the weakness from May through October. However, evaluating the magnitude of the performance difference between the two periods is important. Jeff Miller, PhD, the author of the Dash of Insight blog, has noted,

“The seasonal slogans often substitute for thinking and analysis. The powerful-looking chart…actually translates into a 1% monthly difference in performance. The “good months” gain 1.3% on average while the “bad months” gain about 0.3%.

The below chart displays the average returns for various intra-year periods.

Source: CXO Advisory Group

One aspect of the of the May to October period is the fact downside volatility is greater. According to a recent article from Charles Schwab, in secular bull market periods the May-Oct. performance range is -13% to 20%. The return range in the Nov.-Apr. period is -5 to 24%. Investors should note, the strategy is not full proof. In the same Schwab article just referenced,

“The “strategy” did not work for the three years from 2012-2014, or for the five years from 2003-2007, when there were gains between May and October in each year. In addition, as you can see in the [table in the article], there is a meaningful difference between how the market performs from a seasonal perspective in secular bull or secular bear markets. Average gains and the percent of positive cases have been higher in secular bulls than in secular bears (even if they are still lower than in the November through April period).”

So certainly, a “Sell in May” strategy has historical validity, but the weaker return in the May to Oct. period does not mean the returns will be negative. Take under consideration we are in a presidential election year, and yes, the May to Oct. period is the strongest.

Source: MarketWatch

The “sell in May’ strategy is certainly not as clear cut as the adage states. Additionally, with all the focus on the strategy now, the market tends to enjoy proving the consensus wrong.

Wait, there’s more: this from Cumberland Advisors:

In order to compare time-series returns, we construct our experimental portfolio with a “Halloween indicator,” which keeps us invested in the S&P 500 from October 31 to April 30. The control portfolio is just the opposite – invested from April 30 to October 31. As shown in Figure 1, using data going back to 1950, on average the experimental portfolio (November–April) outperforms the control portfolio (May–October) by 5.64% annually. This result is statistically significant at the 1% level, which means we can say with great confidence that the “sell in May” portfolio should outperform the “sell in November” one. Specifically, the average return from November to April is 6.99%, while the other six months’ yield is only 1.35%. Nevertheless, the realized standard deviations are fairly close: 10.09% for the experimental portfolio and 9.36% for the control. Summers traditionally see an uptick in volatility. (…)

Punch Remember, this is a probability game. We know the odds are poorer between May and October and we know that volatility is higher. These two factors are especially dangerous when valuations are on the higher side of the ledger.