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$ (18 MARCH 2014)

Food Prices Surge as Drought Exacts a High Toll on Crops Surging prices for food staples from coffee to meat to vegetables are driving up the cost of groceries in the U.S., pinching consumers and companies that are still grappling with a sluggish economic recovery.

imageSurging prices for food staples from coffee to meat to vegetables are driving up the cost of groceries in the U.S., pinching consumers and companies that are still grappling with a sluggish economic recovery.

Federal forecasters estimate retail food prices will rise as much as 3.5% this year, the biggest annual increase in three years, as drought in parts of the U.S. and other producing regions drives up prices for many agricultural goods. (…)

In the U.S., much of the rise in the food cost comes from higher meat and dairy prices, due in part to tight cattle supplies after years of drought in states such as Texas and California and rising milk demand from fast-growing Asian countries. But prices also are higher for fruits, vegetables, sugar and beverages, according to government data. In futures markets, coffee prices have soared so far this year more than 70%, hogs are up 42% on disease concerns and cocoa has climbed 12% on rising demand, particularly from emerging markets. (…)

Inflation also could be tempered if U.S. farmers, as expected, plant large corn and soybean crops this spring and receive favorable weather during the summer. That would hold down feed prices for livestock and poultry, as well as ingredient costs for breakfast cereals and baked goods.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated last month that retail food prices will rise between 2.5% and 3.5% this year, up from 1.4% last year. The inflation comes despite sharp decreases over the past year in the prices of grains, including corn, after a big U.S. harvest. In other years—notably 2008—surging grain prices were a key contributor to higher food costs. (…)

One reason prices are higher now is the lingering effect from the historic 2012 U.S. drought, which sent animal-feed prices surging to record highs and caused livestock and dairy farmers to cull herds, analysts said.

In California, the biggest U.S. producer of agricultural products, about 95% of the state is suffering from drought conditions, according to data from the U.S. Drought Monitor. This has led to water shortages that are hampering crop and livestock production.

imageU.S. fresh-vegetable prices that jumped 4.7% last year are forecast to rise as much as 3% this year, while fruit that gained 2% last year will rise up to 3.5% in 2014, according to the USDA.

Dry weather in Brazil has contributed to a dramatic increase this year in prices for arabica coffee, the world’s most widely produced variety. Arabica-coffee futures, which were at a seven-year low last year, settled at a two-year high of $2.0505 a pound on March 13.

In each of the past two years, global food prices on average declined from the previous year, as farmers ramped up production of wheat, sugar and other commodities, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which publishes a monthly food-price index. But that index rose 5.2 points to 208.1 last month compared with January, the sharpest jump since mid-2012.

Food-price increases are a particularly touchy issue for emerging markets, where spending on food accounts for a higher share of monthly budgets than in wealthier countries. (…)

In last week’s post on rising food prices, I also warned of the coming El Niño which we last saw in 2009:

Commodities investors and farmers are on alert after the third official warning in a week of an El Niño weather phenomenon emerging that could affect food and energy markets already reeling from extreme weather in many parts of the world.

Smile U.S. inflation muted despite food price increases

The Labor Department said its Consumer Price Index nudged up 0.1 percent as a decline in gasoline prices offset an increase in the cost of food. It had ticked up 0.1 percent in January and last month’s gain was in line with economists’ expectations.

In the 12 months through February, consumer prices increased 1.1 percent, slowing from a 1.6 percent rise in January. The February increase was the smallest rise since October last year.

Last month, food prices rose 0.4 percent, the largest increase since September 2011. That accounted for more than half of the increase in the CPI last month.

Stripping out the volatile energy and food components, the so-called core CPI also rose 0.1 percent for a third straight month. In the 12 months through February, core CPI rose 1.6 percent after advancing by the same margin in January.

Has Food Stamp Enrollment Finally Peaked? After years of increases that defied the roaring stock market of 2013 and the slowly falling unemployment rate, the number of Americans receiving food stamps appears to be easing. Somewhat. Very, very slowly.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, reported that 46.8 million Americans received SNAP benefits in December. That is a lot of people, but it’s also the lowest number of Americans to receive benefits since June 2012. The December 2013 figure was down 1 million people from December 2012.

The USDA also reported that 22.8 million households received SNAP benefits in December, which is the lowest number since August 2012. And the $5.8 billion in SNAP benefits that was paid out in December was the lowest number since November 2010.

SNAP data can bounce around, and it’s unclear whether the number of people receiving benefits will continue to fall. The December figures don’t take into account changes that were made in February when Congress passed a farm bill that included new limits on who can receive food stamps. Also, as more and more Americans return to work and earn more money, the number of people receiving these benefits is expected to fall, though many thought total enrollment would fall more quickly than it has.

U.S. Factories Rev Up

Industrial production increased a seasonally adjusted 0.6% in February from the prior month, the Federal Reserve said Monday. Capacity utilization, a gauge of slack across industries, was up 0.3 percentage point to a 78.8% rate.

In one positive sign, manufacturing output—the largest component of industrial production—jumped 0.8% in February. That was the biggest gain since August and nearly retraced a 0.9% January drop. (…)

Manufacturing output had tumbled 0.9% in January. “Much of the swing in the rates of change for production in January and February reflected the depressing effects on output of the severe weather in January and the subsequent return to more normal levels of production in February,” the Fed said. (…) (Chart from Haver Analytics)

Confused smile I thought severe weather hit much of February.

February ended with its coldest final week since 2003, according to Berwyn, Pennsylvania-based weather data provider Planaytics Inc., The second week of the month was the snowiest such period since 2007.

It will all be clearer in April Fingers crossed.

And while the weather effect may be fading, manufacturers still have to cope with inventory backlogs. Factory stockpiles rose steadily last year as production outstripped demand. Inventories of durable goods—products designed to last at least three years—hit a record level in January. When too many goods pile up on shelves, companies typically slow output.

New York manufacturers said business conditions improved this month, although new demand remains sluggish, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey released Monday. The Empire State’s business conditions index increased to 5.61 in March after it fell to 4.48 in February from 12.51 in January, which had been the highest reading since May 2012.

FINAL WEATHER SCORES

Assuming there are no revisions (Winking smile), here’s the final tally via Mother Jones:

This winter has been a tale of two Americas: The Midwest is just beginning to thaw out from a battery of epic cold snaps, while Californians might feel that they pretty much skipped winter altogether. In fact, new NOAA data reveal that California’s winter (December through February) was the warmest in the 119-year record, 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average. temperature map

U.S. Home Builders Remain Cautious U.S. home builders remained cautious about the housing market in March, suggesting a driver of the recovery might be sputtering for reasons beyond the severe winter weather.

Builder confidence in the market for single-family homes rose just one point from a month earlier to a seasonally adjusted 47 in March, the National Association of Home Builders said Monday. Readings below 50 indicate more builders view conditions as poor than good.

The increase, which was smaller than expected, comes after a drop of 10 points in February, the biggest one-month decline on record. Builders reported they were slowed by poor weather, but also said they were also hampered by difficulties finding labor and land. (…)

Monday’s report showed sales and traffic increased slightly in March, but sales expectations over the next six months declined. (Chart from Haver Analytics)

 large image large image

image Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

The 0.2 percent decrease to 907,000 homes at an annualized rate last month followed a revised 909,000 pace in January, figures from the Commerce Department in Washington showed today. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey called for a 910,000 rate after a previously reported 880,000 in January.

Permits filed for future projects increased 7.7 percent to a 1.02 million pace in February, the most since October and reflecting a surge in applications for apartment-building construction. One-family home-building permits dropped for a third straight month to the lowest level in a year. (Chart from CalculatedRisk)

CONTAINER IMPORTS DECLINE FOR SECOND STRAIGHT MONTH

image

U.S. ocean container export volumes fell 4.7 percent from January, following two months of modest increases. Exports to China, one of our largest trading partners, have fallen for the last two months. Recently the Chinese economy has slowed, with factories closing and wages falling. Exports to many of our other major trading partners decreased in February as well. This was the worst February for container exports in the last five years. Compared to February 2013, exports were down 16.8 percent. (Cass)

Must be the weather, somewhere…

EU Auto Demand Revs Up

New car registrations, which closely track actual sales, rose 8% in February from the same month a year earlier to 861,058 vehicles, the European Association of Automobile Manufacturers, known as ACEA, said. Car sales in February rose for the sixth consecutive month after six years of falling demand. Car sales in January and February combined were up 6.6%.

Car sales fell 1.4% in France last month, while sales in Germany, the EU’s biggest car market, rose 4.3% and are up 5.7% so far this year. Car sales rose 3% in the United Kingdom and were up 8.6% in Italy and 17.8% in Spain.

German Court Clears Bailout Fund Germany’s highest court ruled that the euro zone’s permanent bailout mechanism is in line with the country’s constitution, confirming a ruling that had been crucial to put an anticrisis firewall in place.
imageRussian Sanctions vs. Russian Debt Exposure

(…) Russia clearly does not have a public foreign debt problem, but it does have a private foreign debt problem. Its corporates have issued FX-denominated bonds now worth 10% of its GDP (see the chart “Russian External Bonds”). That issuance has grown further and faster than for emerging markets as a whole, as well as commodity-exporting EM economies which tend to be the perennial bad boys of debt.

Who owns this foreign debt? Bonds are bearer instruments so we don’t know. But we do know something about bank exposure to Russia, and it is European banks that are exposed to the lion’s share of the problem. European banks’ exposure to Russia totals $272bn, which is about a fifth of their exposure to the GIIPS economies. In and of itself, that doesn’t sound like the makings of a crisis, but it is clearly an additional deleveraging headwind that will buffet a banking sector that has barely recovered from its 2011-12 “near-death” experience.

The circumstances under which this exposure could turn into a crisis are where a weakening ruble makes the foreign debt burden difficult for Russian banks and non-financial corporations to service, especially at a time when weakening domestic growth threatens their earnings momentum. Those circumstances are neither distant nor unlikely.

CHINA
China FDI data indicates sharp slowdown in February  China drew $19.3 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in the first two months of 2014, up 10.4 percent from a year earlier, the Commerce Ministry said on Tuesday, indicating a sharp slowdown in February due to the Lunar New Year holidays.

China drew $19.3 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in the first two months of 2014, up 10.4 percent from a year earlier, the Commerce Ministry said on Tuesday, indicating a sharp slowdown in February due to the Lunar New Year holidays.

Chinese Companies Caught in Yuan Riptide China’s decision to squeeze speculators out of its currency is causing pain for local companies and individual investors.

(…) paper losses on one popular way companies hedge their yuan exposure and individual investors bet on the yuan, through what is known as target redemption-forward products, have hit $2.3 billion, on contracts valued at $150 billion. (…)

For now, most of the losses remain on paper because investors and companies haven’t yet sold their positions. However, banks are asking both corporate and individual clients with losing bets to pony up more collateral, traders in Hong Kong say. Banks also are advising companies to restructure their investments around weaker levels for the yuan, a cheaper alternative than completely unwinding millions of dollars of the products, which were originally designed to help companies hedge against gains in the yuan.

While the recent declines likely aren’t big enough to trigger a stampede out of the yuan, the added volatility in the exchange rate may give some investors pause. (…)

CHINA’S REAL ESTATE CRISIS

This potential risk is now widely known (WATSA ON CHINA). Stratfor just wrote a piece on China housing (Tks Maurice). Some excerpts from A Difficult Year Looms for China’s Real Estate Market:

(…) At the moment, the price cuts are confined to a few complexes and areas associated with specific developers. Nevertheless, falling prices have given way to growing pressure to sell in local property markets across the country, posing a serious threat to the stability of the national real estate market and the economy as a whole. (…)

There is massive oversupply and rampant speculation, and local governments are highly dependent on property-related revenues. (…)

The real estate market has become the linchpin of economic growth and local government financing. The real estate sector boomed behind fast-paced urbanization and skyrocketing demand from the rising middle class, but equally important was the political incentive to offer unrestrained credit in order to turn the market into a driver of economic development. Now that Beijing is focused on the structural problems of the country’s economy and its impending slowdown, the government is no longer able to keep prices high. (…)

According to official estimates, property loans by 2013 accounted for about 38 percent of total loans, compared to about 28 percent in 2007. This included 13 percent from mortgages for individuals (down from about 20 percent in 2007), 10 percent for real estate developers and approximately 15 percent for local government financing vehicles (entities created by local governments to raise money for mostly infrastructure and property development projects). In 2014, approximately 2.39 trillion yuan in local debt will mature, most of which is highly dependent on land transfer fees and thus land and property prices for financing and repayment. Cities and provinces that have a high dependence on real estate finances and with declining local economies will be exposed to higher risk, including
Zhejiang, Fujian and Sichuan. Additionally, real estate is the primary source of collateral for about three-fourths of bank loans for many sectors, including manufacturing, steel and shipbuilding. A downturn in real estate prices could undermine the banks’ ability to recover loans for many of these already strained sectors.

Bank exposure to the real estate sector is increasingly off the books – in the form of wealth management products, which have become central features of China’s “shadow” lending sector in recent years, or trust funds — since the credit line was tightened in 2011. In 2014 alone, approximately 4 trillion to 4.5 trillion yuan in high-rate trust funds will mature, about 633.5 billion yuan of which is tied to real estate. Sporadic defaults in small and regional banks associated with industries such as
coal and steel have already occurred. A sharp decline in property prices would add significantly to the risk of bank defaults.

Beijing still has a handful of policy tools to prevent the real estate crisis from spreading nationwide, including loosening restrictive policies on developers and individuals or adding liquidity to the market as it did during the 2008-09 financial crisis. But the central government is also under pressure to refrain from generating greater systemic risk and putting into question its ability to maintain economic and financial stability. With local industries such as coal and manufacturing slowing and an inevitable correction of state-driven investment, a wider adjustment of the local real estate market is unavoidable — and perhaps even necessary in the short
term. The risk of contagion will inevitably grow and could turn the once-booming sector into a liability.

Right on cue, this morning:

China Property Developer Can’t Repay Loans Zhejiang Xingrun’s Default Is Unusually Large for Developer in Affluent Region of Country

Government officials rushed to deal with the collapse of a property developer unable to repay almost $600 million of loans in a large default for a real-estate firm and the latest sign of stress in a slowing Chinese economy.

Officials in the eastern city of Fenghua have been meeting in recent days to determine how to deal with Zhejiang Xingrun Real Estate Co.’s outstanding debt and dispose of its remaining land assets, according to a person in the city’s financial affairs office, who declined to give her name. The company owes banks 2.4 billion yuan ($390 million) and a further 1.1 billion yuan to other creditors, according to a statement on the local government’s website.

Zhejiang Xingrun’s chairman, Shen Caixing, and his son, Shen Mingchong, have been detained by local police after being charged with illegal fundraising, the government statement said. The charge is a broadly defined economic crime often leveled against private businesspeople when their companies collapse. (…)

Earlier this month, solar components maker Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. became the first Chinese company to default on a domestically issued bond. A number of trust companies have signaled that their borrowers are unlikely to be able to repay their debts. (…)

Government records show that at the beginning of 2010, Zhejiang Xingrun paid 660 million yuan, or 4,700 yuan per square meter for what at the time was the largest piece of land the local government had sold in two years. At the end of 2013, the local government sold three adjoining lots for about 3,500 yuan per square meter, undercutting the value of the land the company was using as collateral. (…)

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL? Hmmm…

Small caps continue to outperform large caps. Citigroup analysts try to explain (via ValueWalk):

(…) there is a view that the more domestic focus of smaller cap Russell 2000 stocks may be part of the reason given unanticipated international developments for the relative strength. Moreover, new growth concerns in China and other emerging economies likely have affected more of the bigger multinational entities than their smaller counterparts, yet many indicators suggest a swap back toward large caps make eminent investment sense.  image

Small cap valuations are getting more and more stretched, defying nearly 40 years of history:image

Citi’s analysts have done the leg work for us:

When reviewing 360 (!) economic indicators and finding the 10 most highly correlated to subsequent 12-month stock price trends, it is signaling that a large cap bias is appropriate. Notably, the spread between junk bond and 10-year Treasury yields are near historical lows and there has been a relative price performance relationship tied to that spread as well. Accordingly, it seems wise to take on the large cap relative trade at this juncture.It’s amazing the relationships one can find when one digs through 360 indicators: how the capacity utilization of electric and gas utes can help understand the Russell 200/S&P 500 relationship is well beyond me but what else is new? On the other hand, Citi’s model on that same relationship has been pretty good.

Figure 3 highlights the lead indicator model that we have constructed by reviewing the correlations of 360 economic series and subsequent relative stock price performance of large and small cap indices and finding the 10 most correlated factors. While we do not disclose all of the factors in this proprietary approach, Figure 4 does address one to give investors some glimpse of underlying data sources and its unique R-squared relationship. Accordingly the data argues for smaller cap relative caution.

TheTradersWire.com is also alarmed by the apparent froth in small caps:

(…) Another sign of disproportionate risk in small-caps is so many of the past year’s leaders in the Russell have no earnings.

Shockingly, among the index’s top 10 performers during the past 12 months, only the beleaguered retail pharmacy chain Rite Aid (NYSE: RAD) has positive earnings. The rest are losing money.

This suggests investors who favor small stocks are resorting to heavy speculation in their pursuit of attractive returns because so few good values are left in the smaller-cap space. (In fact, only about 10% of Russell 2000 stocks currently trade for 10 times earnings or less.) And based on the names in the Russell top 10, the speculation involves the riskiest types of stocks — biotechnology, alternative energy, and technology companies that have rarely, if ever, turned a profit. (…)

Steaming mad One-Fifth of U.S. Teens Say Designated Driver OK to Drink

About one in five adolescents say it’s fine for their driver to have some alcohol or use drugs, as long as that person isn’t too impaired to drive. Four percent just pick the least inebriated person to take them home, Liberty Mutual Holding Co. and a safety group found in a survey released today. (…)

A separate study of bar patrons last year found that about 40 percent of designated drivers consumed some booze. Confused smile

NEW$ & VIEW$ (17 MARCH 2014)

INFLATION WATCH
Producer Prices Inch Downward The prices businesses receive for their goods and services fell in February, a sign of weak inflationary pressures in the economy.

The producer-price index, which measures price changes for everything from food to energy to transportation services, decreased 0.1% from the prior month, the Labor Department said Friday. That compared with the 0.2% rise forecast by economists and which the index registered in January.

Excluding trade services, as well as food and energy, which can also be volatile, the index rose 0.1%, the same rate of increase as in January.

The index rose 0.9% in February from the same period a year ago, down from a 1.2% annual increase posted in the prior month.

“Underlying inflationary pressures are clearly very tame, and we rule out that any substantial upward movement will be registered near term,” said Annalisa Piazza, an economist at Newedge Strategy.

High five Hmmm…”clearly very tame”? Strong statement that goes right along the main prevalent narrative. But I find that inflationary pressures are far from being clearly very tame.

Consider that:

  • The old measure of producer prices, which excludes the categories included in its latest revamp, is now known as “finished goods.” The category rose 0.4% in February after rising 0.6% the prior month (+6.2% annualized).
  • The new FD-ID system highlights the index for final demand, which measures price changes for goods, services, and construction sold to final demand: personal consumption, capital investment, government purchases, and exports. The composition of products in the final demand price index differs from that of the previous headline index, finished goods, in two major respects. First, it includes government purchases and exports. Second, it includes services and construction, which are not reflected in finished goods.
  • The decline in February’s PPI was largely driven by final-demand trade services, a measure of changes in margins received by wholesalers and retailers. This volatile category fell 1%, its largest decline since May. Over 80% of the February decrease in the index for final demand services can be attributed to margins for apparel, footwear, and accessories retailing, which fell 9.3 percent.
  • imageIn contrast, prices for final demand goods advanced 0.4 percent, for the third consecutive months, a 4.9% annualized rate over the last 3 months. A major factor in the February advance in the index for final demand goods was prices for pharmaceutical preparations, which rose 0.9 percent. The indexes for dairy products, residential natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, soft drinks, and eggs for fresh use also increased.
  • Core goods (ex-food and energy) prices were up 0.2% totalling a 3.6% annualized rate of increase over 3 months.
  • Pointing up Moreover, there are rapidly rising prices in the pipeline. The index for processed goods for intermediate demand moved up 0.7% in February, following advances of 0.6% in January and 0.5% in December. This is a 7.4% annualized rate over the last 3 months. The broad-based rise in February 2014 was led by the index for processed materials less foods and energy, which climbed 0.6%. In addition, prices for processed energy goods and for processed foods and feeds increased 1.0% and 1.1%, respectively.

image

In other words, excluding government-related goods and services and declining retail margins due to weak demand, producer prices are rising at a high and accelerating rate. This during the very months when demand was apparently weak due to severe weather. Producer prices were not frozen, to say the least. And while services are a significant part of consumption and CPI, services prices are very sensitive to trends in wages which are also showing an inclination to accelerate (see Goldman Sachs chart below). If you “rule out that any substantial upward movement will be registered near term”, you may get very surprised near term.

Friday’s Good Read post (Identifying with a particular narrative can lead investors to make poor decisions) is particularly relevant here.

imageEuro-Zone Inflation Lower Than First Estimated

The European Union’s statistics agency Monday said consumer prices in the 18 nations that share the euro were 0.3% higher than in January, and 0.7% higher than in February 2013. Eurostat last month estimated that the annual rate of inflation was unchanged at 0.8% in February.

High five  Unfortunately, Eurostat does not make it easy to dig into the data. But a casual look at the table below reveals that core inflation has been accelerating in January and February. In fact, core inflation was +1.0% in February from +0.7% in December. Even services prices are accelerating. So, when the FT writes that “Revised figure adds to worries about threat of deflation”, it reinforces what seems to be a false narrative endorsed by most everybody..

image

This is in Draghi’s “island of stability”. And that too:

Yuan Weakens as PBOC Doubles Trading Band China’s yuan weakens after the central bank doubled the currency’s daily trading band against the U.S. dollar, a major step toward making the yuan a freer currency.

image(…) The currency fell 0.5% Surprised smile to 6.1781 per dollar Monday, one of its biggest slides in a decade and on the first day of trading where it is allowed to trade in a 2% range. Losses on the offshore yuan accelerated as it hit a 10-month low of 6.1688 against the U.S. dollar, with a higher number meaning a lower yuan. The People’s Bank of China, the country’s central bank, widened the trading band from 1% a day on Saturday.

The sudden move lower is heightening concern over financial derivative products turning sour. Traders and analysts say banks are asking clients that have taken out such trades to boost their collateral and are getting inquiries from companies’ about restructuring these leveraged bets.

The value of these derivative products come from complex calculations using the current exchange rate, volatility and time remaining on the options contracts. The bets were based on the assumption the yuan would stay on its steady path upward after rising 2.9% last year. But the yuan has dropped 2% this year, accompanied by wider price swings, meaning the contracts are worth less and for some are turning into losses. (…)

FYI:

     image
SHARE BUYBACKS DO NOT BOOST INDEX EPS

Howard Silverblatt, S&P Senior Index Analyst, explains why, contrary to widespread belief, buybacks do not boost S&P Index earnings per share:

Buybacks do not increase S&P 500 Index earnings-per-share (EPS), the Dow is a different story.

On an issue level, share count reduction (SCR) increases EPS, therefore reducing the P/E and making stocks appear more ‘attractive’. SCR is typically accomplished via buybacks, with the vital statistic being not just how many shares you buy, but how many shares you issue. In the most recent Q4 2013 period we saw companies spend 30.5% more than they spent in Q4 2012, though they purchased about the same number of shares. The reason is (in case you didn’t notice), that prices have gone up, with the S&P 500 up 29.6% in 2013, and the average Q4 2013 price up 24.7% over Q4 2012. Many companies, however, appear to have issued fewer sharers, and as a result have reduced their common share count. The result is that on an issue level it is not difficult to find issues with higher EPS growth than net income (USD) growth. A quick search found that over 100 issues in the S&P 500 had EPS growth for 2013, which was at least 15% higher than the aggregate net income. The result for those issues, were higher EPS and a lower P/E.

On an index level, however, the situation is different. The S&P index weighting methodology adjusts for shares, so buybacks are reflected in the calculations. Specifically, the index reweights for major share changes on an event-driven basis, and each quarter, regardless of the change amount, it reweights the entire index membership. The actual index EPS calculation determines the index earnings for each issue in USD, based on the specific issues’ index shares, index float, and EPS. The calculation negates most of the share count change, and reduces the impact on EPS.

The situation, however, is the opposite for the Dow Jones Industrial 30. The Dow methodology uses per share data items. So if a company reduces its shares, with the impact being a 10% increase in earnings (as an example) with a corresponding 5% increase in net income, the Dow’s EPS will show the increase in EPS. Again, the impact would be mostly negated in the S&P 500. This is not to say that buybacks don’t impact stock performance, and therefore the stock level of the indices (and price is in P/E). It is only to say that the direct impact on the S&P 500 EPS is limited, even as examples on an issue level are becoming easier to find.

WINTER WOES

Searching through all earnings conference call transcripts for S&P 500 companies between January 1, 2014 and March 12, 2014, the term “weather” was mentioned at least once in 195 conference calls. This number reflects an increase of 81% over the year ago period (January 1, 2013 through March 12, 2013), when the term was mentioned in 108 conference calls. At the sector level, the Energy, Consumer Discretionary, and Industrials sectors not only had the highest number of conference calls in which the term was used, but also the highest year-over-year growth in absolute numbers. (Factset)

The count for the number of times economists have mentioned “winter” continues…Winking smile

SENTIMENT WATCH
Haunted by the Bull That Got Away

The pain of missing out on the tripling of the U.S. stock market since March 2009 has become almost unbearable for many investors who have been watching from the sidelines, financial advisers say.

Some who got out of stocks five years ago are fixating on how much richer they would have been if they had stayed put. Others are suffering the social distress of listening to friends bragging about their bigger returns. (…)

Jim MacKay, of MacKay Financial Planning in Springfield, Mo., says two couples who are new clients of his firm both took nearly all their money out of U.S. stocks in late 2008 and early 2009 and have kept it in cash ever since.

After U.S. stocks returned 32% last year, Mr. MacKay says, these couples are asking themselves, “Uh-oh, what have we done?” They asked to put at least half their money back into stocks—all at once.

Several other financial advisers told me this past week about clients who are chafing to move most or all of their money into stocks. Often, those who lost the most in 2008 and 2009—and begged to be taken out of stocks entirely—are the most eager to pile back in now.

“Some investors have an overwhelming, self-defeating desire to adjust their asset allocation based on recent past results,” says Frank Armstrong, president of Investor Solutions, a financial-advisory firm in Miami. “While markets are reasonably efficient, many investors are hopelessly inefficient.” (…)

Recent gains or losses change how the human brain assesses risk, according to a study that will appear later this year in a well-regarded psychology publication, the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

People were roughly 20% more likely to take a gamble after either a gain or loss than after a neutral outcome, the study shows. During the experience of profits and losses alike, several regions of the brain involved in emotion became more active, while activity dwindled in areas devoted to executive decision-making.

“The experience of gain or loss appears to reduce your deliberation, how much you think about and pay attention to your decisions,” says neuroeconomist Kaisa Hytönen of the Aalto University School of Science in Espoo, Finland, the lead author of the study. “That relative lack of deliberation may be driving you to take more risk in your future choices.”

In this experiment, a loss didn’t mean going into the red—just missing out on a bigger gain. Earlier research has demonstrated that a near miss can prod you into taking much bigger risks than you might otherwise have been willing to run.

How can you take some control over your investing regrets?

First, engage in what Eric Johnson, a psychologist and director of the Center for Decision Sciences at Columbia Business School, calls “therapeutic reframing,” or looking at the same evidence from a different angle.

If you are kicking yourself for having gotten partly out of stocks, focus on the fact that you didn’t get out entirely. Instead of lamenting how much higher your returns would have been over the past five years if you hadn’t reduced your stock exposure in 2008 or 2009, take a moment to calculate how much lower your performance would have been had you sold out completely.

And if you feel you absolutely must buy more stocks to catch up, do so gradually by tiptoeing in over the next year or two in equal monthly installments—as Mr. MacKay, the financial planner, is doing for his clients.

That is especially important when you bear in mind that U.S. stocks fell 57% between 2007 and 2009; if you couldn’t stand that pain then, you have no business clamoring to buy stocks now.

Tiptoeing your way back in, rather than plunging in with both feet, will leave you with a lot less regret if the market goes off a cliff like that again.

Another way, get some cortisol:

Talk about animal spirits. Researchers in the U.K. and Australia have found that a sustained increase in cortisol, a stress hormone that surges in the face of a hungry tiger or a menacing stock market, makes people much more risk-averse financially.

The finding is built in part on previous research involving professional traders in London: Those with higher levels of testosterone in the morning racked up higher profits for the day. But the scientists also found that eight days of market volatility raised the traders’ cortisol levels by 68%. (…)

The findings suggest that the human endocrine system, which secretes hormones, may play an important role in magnifying the effects of financial panics, such as the one of 2007-2008, by making people temporarily more risk-averse—possibly against their own better judgment. Cortisol at such times could fuel a flight to safety among investors and damp buying, further driving down prices and exacerbating a crash. (“Cortisol Shifts Financial Risk Preferences,” Narayanan Kandasamy, John Coates, seven other authors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Feb. 18) (WSJ)

Or, if cortisol is not readily available, simply read this:

The Inside Scoop: Officers and Directors Are Bearish Corporate insiders are far more pessimistic than they were last summer, and that could bode badly for the stock market.

Corporate insiders are more bearish than they have been at least since 1990. (…)

Note: This record bearishness isn’t evident from the insider indicator that gets widespread attention on Wall Street—the ratio of shares of company stock that insiders have recently sold to the number they have bought.

According to the Vickers Weekly Insider Report, published by Argus Research, this sell-to-buy ratio, when applied to transactions over the previous eight weeks, is higher than average but no higher today than it was one year ago—when the S&P 500 was poised to produce an impressive double-digit gain.

And in late 2003, just as the 2002-07 bull market was gathering steam, the insiders’ sell-to-buy ratio rose to even higher levels than it is today.

But this measure is misleading, says Nejat Seyhun, a finance professor at the University of Michigan who has extensively studied insider behavior. That is because it uses a government definition of insiders that includes a group of investors whose past transactions, on average, have shown no correlation with subsequent market moves: those who own more than 5% of a company’s shares. (…)

Mr. Seyhun strips out the largest shareholders from the sell-to-buy ratio, and that adjusted figure shows the current record level of insider bearishness. According to his calculations, corporate officers and directors in recent weeks have sold an average of six shares of their company’s stock for every one that they bought. That’s more than double the average adjusted ratio since 1990, when Mr. Seyhun’s data begin.

One year ago, Mr. Seyhun’s adjusted ratio was solidly in the bullish zone, he says. And in late 2003, the ratio was more bullish still.

The current message of the insider data “is as pessimistic as I’ve ever seen over the last 25 years,” he says. What makes this development so ominous, he adds, is that, while no indicator is perfect, his research has shown that “the adjusted insider ratio does a better job predicting year-ahead returns than almost all of the better-known indicators that are popular on Wall Street.”

There have been two prior occasions when the adjusted insider ratio got almost as bearish as it is today—early 2007 and early 2011. (…)

Given that there is a lot of gray area in the application of the insider-trading laws, insiders often sell well in advance of perceived trouble coming down the pike to avoid the appearance, and potential legal liability, of selling right before bad news about their company hits the market. So it doesn’t mean the market as a whole is set to decline immediately.

This suggests there isn’t any need to immediately sell your stocks. However, you might want to get ready to sell any of your current holdings if and when they reach the price targets you set when purchasing them and park the proceeds in cash rather than immediately reinvesting them in other stocks.

Among the stocks you should be looking to sell are those in industries whose officers and directors are selling particularly aggressively. These sectors, according to Mr. Seyhun, include capital goods, technology, consumer durables (such as automobiles, construction and appliances) and consumer nondurables (food and beverages, clothing and tobacco).

If you nevertheless insist on putting new money to work in the stock market, you might want to favor those sectors whose insiders aren’t especially pessimistic, including the aforementioned energy, industrials and financials. (…)

There you go! You just saved money on psychologists and cortisol.

BTW, being less uncertain does not make one more optimistic (chart from WSJ)

And now, this other hot stuff:

Fresh Corporate Debt Sparks a Feeding Frenzy Buyers of Recent Deals Able to Flip Bonds for Quick Profits

(..) Once sedate affairs, large corporate-bond sales increasingly resemble hot initial public offerings, featuring investor jockeying, first-day price pops and frenetic aftermarket trading. The strong demand has fueled record issuance, aiding borrowers by enabling them to negotiate low rates even when raising large amounts, while boosting the finances of banks that arrange the deals.

Many buyers of recent jumbo deals—including Apple Inc. AAPL -1.12% ‘s $17 billion offering last April, Verizon Communications Inc. VZ +0.11% ‘s record-setting $49 billion issue last September, and even struggling municipal borrower Puerto Rico’s $3.5 billion bond sale this month—were able to flip some of the debt for quick profits, bolstering their returns and leaving left-out fund managers steamed. (…)

A record $1.47 trillion of corporate bonds were sold into the U.S. market last year. The week ended March 7 was the second-busiest ever in the U.S., behind only the week of the Verizon deal last September, in Dealogic records going back to 1995.

Many investors “routinely settle for being under-allocated,” or receiving fewer bonds than they sought, said Christopher Sullivan, chief investment officer at the United Nations Federal Credit Union, which oversees about $2.25 billion.

Back to the future:

Adjustable-Rate Mortgages Make a Comeback Adjustable-rate mortgages, one of the main culprits of the housing crisis, are back in vogue. But banks say this time is different.

(…) Financial groups are sweetening terms to entice customers to take out these loans, known as ARMs, whose rates can jump after a few years. Some ARMs are cheaper, when compared with fixed-rate mortgages, than they have been in more than a decade.

The tactics are reminiscent of the period before the 2008 crisis, when ARMs exploded in popularity as banks and mortgage brokers touted their low initial rates to consumers.

Now, though, financial executives say they are focusing on borrowers with strong credit who are using the loans to take out large “jumbo” mortgages—and not so-called subprime borrowers, who used the loans to stretch their buying power as far as it could go.

ARMs comprised 31% of mortgages in the $417,001-to-$1 million range that were originated during the fourth quarter of 2013, according to data prepared for The Wall Street Journal by Black Knight Financial Services, formerly Lender Processing Services, a mortgage-data and services company. That is up from 22% a year earlier and the largest proportion since the third quarter of 2008.

On mortgages of more than $1 million, 61% were ARMs, up from 56% a year earlier. (…)

Banks are betting rates will rise high enough for them to offset any interest they give up in the first few years. Borrowers are betting rates will either stay relatively low, or that they will sell their homes before their interest adjusts higher. (…)

Some smaller lenders such as credit unions are targeting retirees and other borrowers who are looking for superlow rates. And banks increasingly are offering interest-only ARMs, which require customers to make payments only on the interest for as long as 10 years, and which were among loans that caused problems for subprime borrowers during the crisis. (…)

Citi Private Bank says about half of the ARMs it is originating are interest-only, and the Bank of New York Mellon Corp.’s wealth-management group says most clients who sign up for ARMs receive the interest-only feature. (…)

Many banks hold ARMs on their books rather than sell them to government-backed finance firms, as they often do with more conventional mortgages. That means that when the loans’ rates eventually reset, they stand to reap the benefits of larger interest payments from borrowers.

(…) The average credit score for borrowers who took out ARMs in the fourth quarter of 2013 was 762, compared with 693 in the same period in 2006, according to Black Knight Financial. (…)

The average rate on one type of jumbo ARM was 2.91% for the week that ended March 7, or about 1.5 percentage points lower than for the 30-year fixed-rate jumbo, according to mortgage-info website HSH.com. That difference, which has mostly held since November, is the largest since 2003.

Rates on some of the most popular ARMs can increase by a maximum of six percentage points after the fixed-rate period ends, depending on how high their benchmark rate rises. Fingers crossed