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$ (9 DECEMBER 2014)

Today: What oil windfall? Fed communications. Plummet in Chinese, Greek and Russian. Crude stuff.
NORTH POLE, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

With booming employment and lower gasoline prices, one would expect consumers to rush to the stores and spend liberally. Yet, weekly chain store sales are not showing any strength up to last Saturday. The 4-week m.a. is up 2.4% with only 18 days to go. Unless everybody is shopping online now.

image

Fingers crossed Pretty similar with last year when sales jumped in the last 17 days. Nevertheless, one has to wonder why sales are not stronger given the oil windfall.

BTW, gasoline futures are now $1.71; retail prices heading towards $2.41 in January.

Surprised smile McDonald’s Decline in U.S. Sales Accelerates Burger Chain in November Posts Biggest Same-Restaurant Drop in More Than 14 Years

The U.S. slide was the largest, with sales falling 4.6% from the same month a year ago, far more than the 1.9% drop analysts had projected and more than September’s 4.1% sales slide in what was then the company’s biggest monthly drop since early 2003.

Fed Aims to Signal Shift on Low Rates Federal Reserve officials at their meeting next week are likely to affirm their plan to start raising short-term interest rates in 2015 and could begin by dropping their assurance that rates will stay low for a “considerable time.”

(…) The big challenge Fed officials face at next week’s meeting is communicating the prospect of rate increases without locking themselves into a timetable or severely unsettling markets. A key decision is when to remove the “considerable time” pledge in their policy statement, which has been in the Fed statement since March. (…)

Consistent gains in hiring and declines in unemployment suggest the labor market is getting closer to a state Fed officials call “full employment,” in which slack is gone and no longer holding back wage growth. Moreover, growth appears to have accelerated a bit.

At the same time, a stronger dollar and falling commodities prices—including the sharp decline in oil prices—are putting downward pressure on inflation. (…)

Ms. Yellen has a news conference after the policy meeting ends Dec. 17 to explain the central bank’s decision. The Fed doesn’t have another news conference scheduled until March. If officials wait to change the words until then, the market could take it as a signal officials are pushing off planned rate increases until the second half of next year.

At the same time, they don’t want to appear to be locked into moving at midyear or to suggest rate hikes are coming earlier. (…)

Mr. Dudley—a part of Ms. Yellen’s inner circle of advisers—has suggested recently that the Fed could replace the assurance of low rates for a considerable time by stating more vaguely that it expects to be patient before moving. Such a move would be an attempt to build a long runway for rate hikes that would give officials room to shift strategy as their forecasts evolve. (…)

Fed signals rate guidance likely to stay for now

The Federal Reserve’s vow to keep interest rates near zero for a “considerable time” is likely to remain in place for now, with the U.S. central bank set to take a slow and steady approach to its first rate rise in a decade.

Goldman’s take:

Although it is still a close call, the strong employment numbers suggest that the FOMC will make some changes to its “considerable time” forward guidance at the December 16-17 meeting. This forecast is based on three considerations. The first is our reading of the leadership’s own expectations for the liftoff date, which still seem clustered around mid-2015 judging from NY Fed President Dudley’s speech last week. The second is our translation of the “considerable time” phrase as “no hikes for a minimum period that might be on the order of six months, subject to the recovery proceeding broadly in line with expectations.” Together with the first consideration, this suggests that the committee would want to change the language before the March meeting. And the third is that it might be awkward to make significant changes to the language at the January meeting which does not feature a press conference (at least based on the current schedule).

Good chart from ISI:

image

Surprised smile China Markets Plummet China’s stocks, currency and corporate bonds suffered their largest tumbles in years after Beijing took fresh steps to rein in growing risks in the country’s debt-laden financial system.

The selloff started in the bond market, as traders rushed to sell and raise cash after a regulator banned investors from using low-grade corporate debt as collateral to borrow cash. The turmoil then spread to the yuan, which recorded its biggest two-day tumble ever. Later, the benchmark Shanghai index slumped 5.4% to record its biggest fall since 2009. (…)

The Tuesday selloff was triggered when China’s securities clearing house said late Monday it raised the threshold for corporate bonds qualifying as collateral for repurchase agreements, or repos, which are short-term loans with maturity spanning from overnight to 182 days. These are used as a key channel of short-term funding for bond investors. (…)

According to estimates from Shenyin Wanguo Securities, the total value of corporate bonds disqualified as repo collateral under the new rule exceeds 1.25 trillion yuan, or 60% of all outstanding corporate bonds listed on China’s two stock exchanges.

Policy makers gathering in Beijing this week for a key summit are signaling to the investing public that they should prepare for a lengthy period of slower economic growth after years of amassing debt to fuel high growth levels. (…)

The People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s flagship newspaper, gave prominent treatment to a report proclaiming that slower growth is the “new normal” and it published a lengthy commentary from a top government think tank saying structural reforms and better-quality growth were key economic objectives.

“As the economy begins to lose momentum, an appropriate amount of stimulus may be required. … But it should be made clear that stimulus should only be used to regain economic balance and should not be seen as a way to solve medium and long-term structural problems.”

One target of restructuring has been to reduce air and water pollution by tightening environmental regulations and to make more efficient use of energy.

The theme was echoed in an opinion piece in the English language China Daily, where Li Wei, the director of the Development Research Center argued that economic growth needed to be environmentally friendly and sustainable. He noted that China’s energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product was 2.1 times the global average.

That follows a series of measures taken by the Chinese authorities to impose tougher financial discipline on local governments and keep their debt levels in check. In early October, China’s cabinet said Beijing won’t bail local governments out when they fail to repay their debts and will impose ceilings on their borrowing.

Local Chinese governments have taken on massive debt in recent years to fund infrastructure projects since Beijing opened the credit spigot to fend off the global financial crisis.

They have had a tough time this year repaying debt as fiscal revenue growth has slowed in the face of a weaker national economy and China’s property market downturn.

Nearly 40% of the 17.9 trillion yuan in local government debt and guarantees will mature by the end of this year, placing huge pressure on local governments to make repayments, according to a report released by the state auditor late last year.

Surprised smile Greek shares tumble 10.7% on snap election Investors spooked by possibility of Syriza party gaining power
Surprised smile Russian retailers feel the rouble pinch Tourists downgrade holiday plans amid growing economic crisis

On the back of a growing economic crisis in Russia, western sanctions and a rapidly devaluing rouble, Russian tourists are downgrading their holiday plans. Those who once splashed out on holidays at upmarket European resorts are now reverting to mass-market options in Turkey and Egypt. Instead of Paris or London, customers are now choosing “budget” stand-ins such as Prague and Tallinn. (…)

“The impact on travel demand has been quite negative because hotels and goods abroad for Russians have almost doubled in relative price over the past year, and discretionary income has been reduced due to day-to-day imported goods being more expensive,” said Kirill Makharinsky, an internet entrepreneur and co-founder of the Russian travel site Ostrovok. (…)

According to property consultancy Knight Frank, Russian retailers saw a 5-10 per cent drop in revenue in October compared with the previous year.

Crude Rebounds From Five-Year Low Amid Shale-Oil Spending Curbs Brent and West Texas Intermediate rebounded from the lowest closing levels in more than five years amid signs that U.S. oil producers were curbing investment as price competition intensified between OPEC’s largest members.

(…) U.S. shale oil production growth is at risk of slowing in the second half of next year and in 2016, Amrita Sen, chief oil market analyst at consultant Energy Aspects, said at a Platts conference in Dubai. Market fundamentals don’t warrant a price as low as $60 a barrel, even with an oversupply, and WTI will average in the “high sixties” in the first half of next year, with Brent in the “low seventies,” she said. (…)

Kuwait Sees Oil Stuck at $65 for Six Months Until OPEC Moves
Crude Drop Hits Energy Megaprojects Crashing oil prices have put some of the world’s biggest energy companies under pressure to reconsider multibillion-dollar expenditures.

(…) ConocoPhillips said its capital spending would fall to $13.5 billion next year, down 20% from this year’s level. Included in next year’s total is $4.8 billion, or 36% of its capital budget, to start up marquee oil and gas projects in the North Sea, in Australia and Canada’s oil sands.

Ryan Lance, ConocoPhillips’s chief executive, said the spending reduction “is prudent given the current environment.” The Houston-based company will spend less on some large projects that are nearing completion, and cut back on exploring for new sources of oil and gas. It estimates it will pump 3% more oil and gas in 2015 than this year. (…)

For Shell to consider pursuing a new project, it “must be able to break even at $70” a barrel, a spokesman said. A BP PLC spokesman said it uses “a long-term planning price of around $80” a barrel when considering new investments. Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson recently said in a television interview that the company tests projects “across a range that’s all the way down to $40” when considering projects. A Chevron spokesman said the company has based its “2017 production forecast on a Brent price of $110” and that it conducts a “stress test” of projects at lower price levels. (…)

Even before oil prices began falling earlier this year, companies have been delaying or canceling projects for cost worries. Chevron and BP are reviewing plans for offshore projects in the U.K. and U.S. that could cost billions of dollars. (…)

Bernstein on Monday estimated that a 35% drop in oil prices would result in a 25% decrease in industry cash flow. But it forecast that crude prices would eventually rise as companies cut back on drilling.

Oil Rout a Distant Dream for European Drivers

The CHART OF THE DAY compares gasoline in Europe and the U.S. since Brent crude oil began a 42 percent collapse on June 19, when it peaked for the year at $115.71 a barrel. Europe’s is down just 8 percent while in the U.S. the slide at pumps is 27 percent over the same period.

A Powerful Combo: the Rule of 20 and the “120 Yield Spread”

Patrick, a reader, recently sent me a link to a Barron’s article referring to a short post by Eddy Elfenbein. As you will see, this short post, combined with the Rule of 20, will go a long way in improving our equity investment returns.

I did some research and found this fascinating stat. When the spread between the 90-day and 10-year Treasury yield is 121 basis points or more, the stock market does much better than when it’s 120 basis points or less.

Here’s how it works. Since 1962, the S&P 500 has averaged a 1.42% annualized gain when the yield spread is 120 points or less (that doesn’t include dividends). But it’s averaged 10.47% per year when the spread is 121 basis points or more. That’s a big difference.

Over the last 53 years, the spread has been 120 basis points or less about 41% of the time, and it’s been 121 basis points or more the other 59% of the time.

The spread has been over 121 points continuously for nearly seven straight years. In fact, the indicator’s only big miss came in early 2008 when it flashed bullish several months too early.

The yield spread is currently 230 basis points. If the 10-year yield stays at this level, then, according to our indicator, we don’t have to start worrying about stocks until the 90-day yield gets over 1%. It’s currently at 0.04%.

Here’s the spread over the last 30 years (the black line is at 120 basis points):

image1443

Elfenbein analysed data since 1962 but only provides a chart since 1985, a period which saw inflation and interest rates go down almost non-stop, providing a strong tailwind to equity valuations. During the 23 years between 1962 and 1985, the S&P 500 Index grew at an annual compound rate of 4.3% (ex-dividends). During the following 29 years, it grew at twice that rate (8.8%), in spite of the fact that earnings grew faster in the earlier period (+7.5%) than in the latter period (+6.8%). To illustrate the impact of rising P/Es, had the S&P 500 Index compounded in sync with earnings since 1985, it would be 1210 currently, 57% below current levels!

The chart below plots the yield spread back to 1950. It reveals meaningful differences between periods:

  • the 1950-1970 period witnessed very tight spreads, generally well below 120 bps.
  • The high inflation seventies saw spreads widen considerably, reaching deep negative levels 3 times when the Fed jacked up short-term rates to reign inflation in.
  • Since 1982, the long disinflationary era, spreads remained wide but much more positive. The yield curve inverted briefly (5 months) in 2000 and in 2006 (9 months).

image

Because of the meaningful differences between periods, it seems best to look at each period separately in order to better appreciate Elfenbein’s conclusion.

Between 1950 and 1970, the yield spread was above 120 only 25% of the time. Yet, the S&P 500 Index appreciated 9% per year compounded. However, if one had owned the Index only when the yield spread was above 120, the return would have been 28% annually compared with 3.3% when the yield spread was at or below 120 (the charts below plot the S&P Index on a log scale).

image

During the inflationary years of 1970 to 1981, the yield spread was above 120 sixty-four percent of the time. The S&P 500 Index appreciated only 2.7% per year compounded. However, if one had owned the Index only when the yield spread was above 120, the return would have been 13% annually compared with –8.5% when the yield spread was at or below 120.

image

So far, so good. Let’s now consider the last 33 years, characterized by disinflation, declining interest rates, two equity bubbles and extraordinary QEs. The S&P 500 Index appreciated nearly 9% per year compounded during the whole period. The yield spread remained above 120 seventy-two percent of the time. That said, the bulk of the returns occurred between 1982 and 1997 (+13.8% annually), a period during which the yield spread above 120 seventy-eight percent of the time. Between 1998 and the end of 2007, the yield spread was at or below 120 nearly 54% of the time and the S&P 500 Index gained only 4.1% annually, all of the gains recorded during the 3 bubble years to 2000.

image

No indicator is perfect. Out of the 21 yield spread cycles since 1950, 6 (29%) did not perform favourably:

  • Between March 1951 and January 1953, the S&P 500 Index gained 21% while the yield spread declined from 119 to 87.
  • Between April 1962 and January 1966, the S&P 500 Index gained 43% while the yield spread declined from 111 to zero.
  • The October 1987 crash occurred while the yield spread was well above 120 and rising.
  • The S&P 500 Index gained 28% while the yield spread declined from 120 in November 1988 to 21 in August 1989.
  • The S&P 500 Index gained 29% while the yield spread declined from 103 in June 2005 to zero in May 2007.
  • The yield spread was rising well above 120 while the S&P 500 tanked 50% during the 12 months to March 2009.

Patrick suggests to use the yield spread in combination with the Rule of 20 barometer as they might complement each other.

The Rule of 20 simply states that fair P/E is 20 minus inflation. The black line in the chart below (the Rule of 20 Value) plots the sum of the actual P/E on trailing EPS and inflation. The Rule of 20 value generally ranges between 15 and 24 with the lower end of the range representing low valuation risks while anything above 20 indicates increasingly excessive valuation risks. The Rule of 20 is not a timing tool. It is rather a proxy to objectively assess whether the risk/reward equation is favourable or not from a valuation standpoint.

Unlike other valuation proxies, the Rule of 20 has been reliable in all types of equity markets and economic environments since it incorporates inflation in the valuation process (click on chart to enlarge). The smart way to use the Rule of 20 is to gradually increase equity exposure as the Rule of 20 P/E declines towards 15, manage exposure as it rises towards 20, and to aggressively reduce equities as it rises towards 22, being completely out of stocks beyond 22.

image

Using a simple, although admittedly really unfair, rule of being fully invested at 20 or below and totally disinvested above 20, the return (capital only) since 1950 is +10.7% annually at or below 20 compared with +0.6% above 20. Any investor would do much better by taking full advantage of the gradualism provided by the objective risk/reward calculations offered by the Rule of 20. Incidentally, this approach requires zero forecast since it only uses trailing data.

Combining the reliable valuation proxy provided by the Rule of 20 with the useful economic trend/momentum reading provided by the “120 Yield Spread ” would surely improve the already excellent results from these two proxies.

This idea is supported by the fact that in the 6 instances noted above when the yield spread failed, the Rule of 20 was actually flashing the opposite signal:

  • The Rule of 20 P/E averaged a low 14.1 between March 1951 and January 1953.
  • The Rule of 20 P/E dropped to 17 in June 1962 and rose above the “fair value” 20 level in June 1964 after the S&P Index had gained 40%.
  • The Rule of 20 P/E moved above 20 in March 1987 and into the “extreme risk” area above 23 in August 1987.
  • It then quickly dropped into the attractive valuation area where it stayed until May 1990 just before equities dropped 16%.
  • The Rule of 20 P/E was in the lower risk valuation range between September 2006 and September 2007. It moved above 20 in October 2007 at 1550 and reached extreme risk levels in May 2008 at 1400.
  • The Rule of 20 flashed generation-low valuation levels in February 2009 (S&P 500 P/E Ratio at Troughs: A Detailed Analysis of the Past 80 Years).

Conversely, the Rule of 20 barometer, being a valuation gauge, has occasionally had timing issues that the 120 Yield Spread would have alleviated:

  • The S&P 500 Index lost 20% between July 1956 and December 1957 even though the Rule of 20 P/E was in the low 15 area. The yield spread ranged between 80 and 20 throughout that period.
  • The S&P 500 Index lost 13% between July 1959 and October 1960 even though the Rule of 20 P/E fluctuated between 17.6 and 19.2 during those years. The yield spread stayed below 120 between June 1959 and May 1960.
  • The S&P 500 Index lost 17% between January 1966 and September 1966 even though the Rule of 20 P/E was just below 20. The yield spread was near zero during those months.
  • The S&P 500 Index gained 43% between August 1970 and December 1972 while the Rule of 20 P/E ranged between 20.3 and 24. The yield spread was well above 120 for most of this period.
  • The S&P 500 Index jumped 50% between November 1990 and January 1994 even though the Rule of 20 P/E was well above 20 and often above 22. The yield spread stayed well above 120 (reaching 360 in January 1993).
  • Same thing between September 2002 and May 2005 when the S&P 500 Index advanced 46% while the Rule of 20 P/E was above 20. The yield spread stayed well above 120 (reaching 370 in May 2004).

Interestingly and importantly, the only period when both gauges failed simultaneously was between December 1976 and February 1978 when equities lost nearly 20% while the Rule of 20 P/E was in the 15-16 range and the yield spread averaged 212. Only one miss out of 21 cycles is pretty remarkable.

The complementarity is clear, significant and fundamentally sound. The Rule of 20 valuation analysis provides the fundamental risk/reward equation while the 120 Yield Spread adds the momentum input from the economic and monetary trends. With simple, objective readings, investors can manage their equity exposure on the basis of both value and momentum according to their own individual risk profile.

Currently, the Rule of 20 P/E (trailing P/E plus inflation) is at 19.9x with inflation at 1.7% using trailing EPS after Q3’14. The Rule of 20 P/E has unusually failed to cross above the critical 20 level four times since 2009. While not flashing overvaluation, the Rule of 20 barometer suggests equities are fairly valued and are vulnerable to any change in investor sentiment. This last happened in October when the Rule of 20 P/E was at 19.7 before the S&P 500 Index corrected 9.8% to a Rule of 20 reading of 17.9.

Meanwhile, the yield curve, at 225, continues to comfortably exceed the 120 level, suggesting positive economic and monetary momentum supporting equities. One caveat with this reading could be that interest rates, particularly short term rates, are currently significantly manipulated by the Fed and are substantially lower than what they would be if left to natural market forces. That has been the case since 2009 but the Fed is now going out of its way telling us that rates are about to enter a period of normalization. That will likely also impact longer-term rates although these are currently heavily influenced by trends in European interest rates.

My personal bias is always to favour valuation readings over growth or momentum indicators. At my age, I am more focused on return OF capital than return ON capital. Buffet rule #1: don’t lose money; rule #2: never forget rule #1. History supports this more cautious bias. While there is little, if any, visible recession risks for the U.S., there are enough other risk factors out there suggesting that investor sentiment can turn on a dime. My three-star rating is only slightly above neutral at this time.

From now on, Bearnobull will display three crucial numbers on its sidebar:

  • The Rule of 20 Value, which fluctuates between 15 and 24 with 20 being the borderline.
  • The 120 Yield Spread reading.
  • The 200 day moving average level, trend and gap to current S&P 500 Index level. The 200 day m.a. is an important trend indicator. It also provides a decent estimate of short-term technical downside or upside.