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

THE DAILY EDGE: 4 AUGUST 2020

New Covid-19 cases are declining in 9 states including Florida, Louisiana, Arizona and Texas. But they are increasing in 16 states per the NYT data.

image

Democrats, White House Upbeat After New Talks on Coronavirus Aid Bill Democratic leaders and White House officials sounded cautiously upbeat notes after another round of talks Monday on a new coronavirus aid package, while President Trump floated potential executive actions.

The department estimated the government would borrow $947 billion from July through September, a record for the quarter, bringing total borrowing for fiscal year 2020 to $4.5 trillion, in line with earlier estimates. That total is more than triple last year’s $1.28 trillion, and it dwarfs borrowing during and after the 2008 financial crisis.

The Treasury also estimated net marketable borrowing from October through December would total $1.216 trillion. Senior Treasury officials said their estimate assumes Congress will eventually pass another round of economic relief, driving about $1 trillion in borrowing through the end of calendar year 2020. (…)

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Rise Further During July

The Autodata Corporation reported that sales of light vehicles rose 10.2% last month (-14.6% y/y) to 14.53 million units (SAAR) from 13.18 million in June. It was the third straight monthly increase from a low of 8.81 million in April. (Previous sales figures were revised.)

Sales improved last month versus 11.35 million averaged in Q2’20, but remained below the average 15.17 million in Q1’20, and 17.05 million in Q4’19. Improved vehicle sales added 0.15 percentage points to Q2 growth in real GDP, after subtracting 0.78 points in Q1. (…)

Imports’ share of the U.S. vehicle market fell sharply last month to 23.1%. Imports’ share of the passenger car market weakened to 27.7%, a four-month low. Imports share of the light truck market similarly fell sharply to 21.6%, also a four-month low.

image

Used-Car Dealers Really, Really Want to Buy Your Vehicle A shortage of inventory, along with higher demand, has used-car salespeople asking what it will take to get you out of your ride

(…) The availability of used vehicles has grown scarce in recent months as fewer people traded in vehicles or returned leases this spring due to virus-related restrictions. Many dealerships were closed or did limited business in early lockdowns, and lease extensions were a common form of Covid relief from lenders. Meanwhile, economic worries as well as a shortage of new cars due to factory closings have sent more buyers to the preowned car lot.

After a drop in April, auto retailers sold a total of 2.1 million preowned vehicles in May and June, a nearly 9% increase over the same two-month period in 2019, according to research firm J.D. Power.

Used-car stockpiles at dealerships dwindled to just under 2.2 million vehicles by late July, a roughly 22% drop from a year earlier, according to research firm Cox Automotive. (…)

The average price paid at auction for a used vehicle rebounded from $12,548 in April—its lowest point in three years—to an all time-high of $14,895 in June, according to vehicle auction operator Manheim. (…)

The dealer’s initial offer for Mr. Dering’s Mariner was $2,000. They ultimately bought it for $6,200, he said. (…)

U.S. Construction Weakens Again in June

Construction activity remains weak. The value of construction put-in-place eased 0.7% (+0.1 y/y) during June following a 1.7% May decline, revised from -2.1%. A 1.0% increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Private construction weakened 0.7% in June (-1.9% y/y) after falling sharply for three straight months. Private residential construction fell 1.5% (-0.8% y/y), down for the fourth consecutive month. Single-family building weakened 3.6% (-7.6% y/y) after falling by 7.7% in each of the prior two months. Spending on improvements dropped 0.4% (+10.0% y/y) after edging 0.7% higher in May. To the upside, multi-family construction activity increased 3.0% (-2.1% y/y), up for the fifth month this year.

Nonresidential private construction edged 0.2% higher (-3.2% y/y). Commercial building fell 1.3% (+2.0% y/y) while office construction improved 0.3% (-3.5% y/y). Manufacturing building strengthened 1.7% (-9.1% y/y) while health care rose 1.7% (0.6% y/y). Amusement facility building remained under pressure and fell 6.2% (-14.7% y/y).

Public construction weakened 0.7% (6.2% y/y). Within the two of the largest sectors, road construction weakened 1.7% (+3.7% y/y) and school building fell 2.7% (+5.5% y/y). Office construction eased 0.3% (+6.8% y/y).

 image image

At least 25 major retailers, including Manhattan mainstay Lord & Taylor and the parent company of Men’s Warehouse and JoS. A. Bank, have filed for bankruptcy this year, with 10 coming over the last five weeks. (Bloomberg)

BP Reports $17.7 Billion Loss, Cuts Dividend BP cut its dividend for the first time in a decade and outlined plans to pivot away from oil and gas and invest more in low carbon energy—marking one of the most dramatic energy-transition plans among its oil major peers.
A MARKET OF STOCKS

Below is one chart from this week’s Bespoke Report that shows the strength we’ve seen from the mega-caps in 2020.  As shown, the five largest stocks in the S&P 500 have collectively added $1.66 trillion in market cap this year.  The other 495 stocks in the index have lost $1.61 trillion in market cap!

(Bespoke)

Jeremy Siegel On Why Rising Stocks Won’t Peter Out

(…) For one thing, short-term rates are zero, which means Treasury and corporate paper don’t have that much more running room for yield declines. (Siegel, like Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and much of the U.S. financial establishment, doesn’t expect negative rates to visit our shores.)

(…) As the result of low rates today, Siegel contends a bear market for bonds is looming.

In a fascinating recent Bloomberg Radio podcast hosted by Barry Ritholtz, one of the most engaging minds on Wall Street, Siegel sketched out why he thinks stocks will eclipse bonds going forward. (…)

Siegel explained that “as the economy opens up, as therapeutics and/or vaccines get developed that reduce that fear, you will see the so-called cyclical economy sensitive stocks do better clearly.” One factor is that Americans are sitting on a pile of savings that will be searching for an outlet beyond delayed consumer spending.

He noted that M2, the measure of the money supply available to the public (cash and checking accounts, plus things like money market funds), jumped 20% in eight weeks earlier in the the pandemic. “All this is suppressed purchasing power,” he said. (…)

He rejects the label some have stuck on him as a “perma-bull” about stocks, by pointing to his Wall Street Journal op-ed in March 2000 decrying the dot-com boom. “The tech sector was selling for 90 times earnings” then, he said, versus a 32 multiple today for the S&P 500.

Going forward, Siegel still expects stocks to outdistance everything else, albeit at a somewhat lower rate, 5% to 6%. And owing to all the government stimulus of late, he looks for a temporary bump up in inflation to a bit above 3%. If you’re a stock investor, though, that shouldn’t faze you, he said, adding “stocks are really good as a moderate inflation hedge.”

With bonds likely to pay tiny yields up ahead and people’s longer life expectancies, Siegel advises investors to switch to a 75-25 stock-bond ratio, from the traditional 60-40. (…)

FYI, M2 is very rarely up more than 10% YoY.

  • It was up 10.3% in early 1987…
  • It was up 8.3% in early 1999…
  • It was up 12.2% in September 2001…

Two charts drawn with Morningstar/CPMS. You be the judge.

First one in M2 YoY vs S&P 500 Index:

image

Second one is M2 YoY vs SP500 YoY:

image

A 2016 paper from the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) (Department of Business Administration and Economics) concluded:

In-sample regressions show a relatively high level of predictability of subsequent stock returns, especially over a longer forecasting horizon. Higher money growth predicts lower stock returns. If an expansionary monetary shock increases stock prices immediately, there is a reversal of stock prices in subsequent periods, since stock returns are lower in subsequent periods. Hence, concerns that liquidity shocks push stock prices permanently to either too high or too low levels are not justified.

Hoisington Management’s Lacy Hunt argues that trends in the money supply must also include trends in the velocity of money

The second macro-economic effect of weaker MRPD [marginal revenue product of debt] will be the continued downward pressure on the velocity of money. Many factors influence money velocity, but a strong long-term relationship has been evident between the trend in the MRPD and velocity since the economy became heavily over-indebted in the late 1990s. Since the peak in velocity in 1997, velocity fell 34% as MRPD decreased 29%. This is a very close relationship in view of the large number of influences on velocity. Upcoming developments will be an excellent test of this relationship as M2 has grown at a 23.8% rate in the latest twelve months, the fastest since 1943.

We expect velocity to drop sharply in the second quarter then rebound in the second half of the year but not sufficiently to offset the fall in velocity in the first half. In 1934, Irving Fisher wrote that the velocity of money falls in heavily indebted economies. We believe that Fisher’s finding will be correct because his view is supported by the evidence and the rationale that the huge additional debt added this year will not generate an income stream to repay principal and interest. Accordingly, the reopening rebound in the economy underway will falter, leaving the economy with a huge output gap. Extreme indebtedness in the corporate sector is a micro-consideration that also supports this view.

Trump Says U.S. Should Get Slice of TikTok Sale Price President Trump said he was ready to approve a purchase of the U.S. operations of the Chinese video-sharing app TikTok, but only if the government receives “a lot of money” in exchange.

Mr. Trump said he told the company’s chief executive, Satya Nadella, that “a very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the United States because we’re making it possible for this deal to happen.” (…)

Legal analysts and others pointed out that the White House had been pushing for a sale of the U.S. parts of TikTok to U.S. owners, making the demand for payment all the more extraordinary.

“It is completely unorthodox for a president to propose that the U.S. take a cut of a business deal, especially a deal that he has orchestrated. The idea also is probably illegal and unethical,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. (…)

“It’s a great asset,” Mr. Trump said of TikTok. “But it’s not a great asset in the United States unless they have the approval of the United States.”

Later in the day, he was asked to clarify his remarks. “It would come from the sale,“ Mr. Trump said. “Whatever the number is, it would come from the sale. Which nobody else would be thinking about but me. But that’s the way I think. And I think it’s very fair.” (…)

The White House referred questions on how a payment would work to the Treasury Department. A Treasury spokeswoman referred a reporter back to the president’s comments, and declined to comment further. (…)

(…) He [Trump] is correct about one thing: The potential sale wouldn’t be on the table if not for U.S. pressure. Moreover, whatever TikTok’s U.S. operations are worth—its parent values the entire enterprise at around $50 billion—Microsoft is in an unusually strong negotiating position with an outright shutdown being the other alternative. (…)

If the proposal is serious, and deemed legal, it would set a dangerous precedent for the seizure of foreign businesses through regulatory fiat, and open the door for U.S. firms to suffer the same treatment. In countries such as Venezuela that often has recently been the case. Many business assets such as licenses to operate, mineral rights or physical facilities can be had for token compensation.

Landing the U.S. part of the wildly popular TikTok could be a major prize for Microsoft. But if the price includes an unseemly payout to the U.S. Treasury, corporate America has far more to lose than to gain by participating.

China reveals ambitious plans to supply Covid-19 vaccines to poor countries Beijing is offering loans and priority access to developing countries for vaccinations as they move to large-scale trials.

From Axios:

When asked if he found Lewis’ life impressive, Trump responded: “He didn’t come to my inauguration. He didn’t come to my State of the Union speeches. And that’s OK. That’s his right. And, again, nobody has done more for Black Americans than I have. He should have come. I think he made a big mistake.”

U.S. Satisfaction at 13%, Lowest in Nine Years

SPLITS ON STOCK SPLITS

August 3, 2020

The WSJ on Aug. 1, 2020 seeks to educate us all on the bullish impact of stock splits:

Stock Splits Pay Off—on the Rare Occasions They Occur

Stocks in the S&P 500 tend to rise 5% in the year following share splits, including 2.5% immediately following the announcement, according to research from Nasdaq Inc. on splits between 2012 and 2018.

“Splits make stocks look better” to everyday investors who would otherwise be put off by a stock’s high sticker price, said Phil Mackintosh, Nasdaq’s chief economist. “And the premium they gather seems to be long-lasting for companies. Investors keep coming into the stock even 12 months later.” (…)

[Apple] rose 10% to $425.04 on Friday, extending its gain so far this year to 45% after the iPhone maker also reported stronger-than-expected earnings on robust sales of apps and its work-from-home devices. The company added about $172 billion in market value, a one-session gain that tops the size of Oracle Corp., Chevron Corp. and McDonald’s Corp.

While the split won’t affect Apple’s valuation, which swelled to $1.817 trillion on Friday, it has implications for investors, as well as for two of the stock indexes in which Apple resides: the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 index.

After the split, Apple’s influence on the Dow will shift from being the most consequential to the middle of the pack. That is because the Dow is price- weighted, meaning the higher the share price, the bigger the influence that stock has over the blue-chip index’s daily price swings.

Had Apple split its stock at the end of last year, the Dow would be off about 10% in 2020, compared with the 7.4% decline it currently registers, according to Dow Jones Market Data. Besides resulting in a smaller role in the Dow’s moves, the change would likely widen the performance gap between the 30-stock index and the broader S&P 500, which is up 1.2% this year and weighted by market value. The divergence between the indexes in 2020 is already at the widest mark in decades. (…)

About 41% of the stocks in the S&P 500 currently trade above $100, the level that once spurred executives to consider a split. Just three companies, including Apple, have unveiled plans for share splits this year. That is down from 102 companies in 1997 and seven in 2016, according to Charles Schwab Corp. (…)

Investors previously found better pricing deals on trades if they were willing to buy round lots of 100 shares rather than on odd lots of stock that carried steeper commissions. (…)

Ramon Laguarta, the chief executive of PepsiCo Inc. dismissed in May the possibility of a stock split for the company, whose shares trade at $137.66. He blamed administrative costs associated with such a move as a deterrent, adding that the expense outweighs the benefits in terms of potential value creation for the company. One academic paper pegged the administrative cost of a stock split as high as $800,000 for a large company. (WSJ)

Hmmm…Ramon, Apple’s value swelled by $172 billion last Friday, covering expenses 215,000 times…PEP’s market cap is $190B. Even a 5% pop, per the Nasdaq “research”, equals nearly $10B. What if you or your CEO had options expiring soon?

Pointing up The empirical study likely to get the most media exposure on stock splits is the 1996 study by David Ikenberry of Rice University who analysed 1,275 companies whose stock split 2-for-1 between 1975 and 1990.

Overall, the evidence suggests that although splits appear to be directly motivated by a desire to maintain a trading range, it also appears that the decision to initiate a stock split is made conditional on favorable expectations regarding future performance. Thus indirectly, splits are informative…Split firms experience an additional permanent excess gain of 7.94% in the first year after the declaration. After three years, compounded excess performance exceeds 12.14%.

In August 2003 Mr. Ikenberry updated the study, adding the period 1990 to 1997. Results were essentially the same. Shares of split stocks on average outperformed the market by 8% the following year and 12% over the next three years.

Truly amazing! Two studies, two periods, exactly similar results.

Imagine what Jeff Bezos left on the market table, had he been splitting AMZN 2 for 1 every time the stock hit $100. Six splits over the last 10 years and 8% excess annual returns each shot: AMZN’s current $1.6T market cap would be $2.5T. That’s a lot of money Bezos failed to deliver! AMZN’s price/cashflow would be 60, not its current 38.

One could think one now has enough info backed by solid empirical analysis to conclude that stock splits are generally good for stock prices and move on to improve one’s golf game, ski in the Alps and live the high life, simply awaiting future split announcements to build one’s portfolio using this very simple factor and easily beat equity markets year after year.

After all, with 85 stock splits per year (1975-90 annual average), it should be easy to build a well diversified portfolio and handily beat the market.

Unfortunately, Jinho Byun (Korea Securities Research Institute) and Michael S. Roseff (University of Buffalo) published in 2003 an analysis of all previous analysis while also performing their own calculations of post-split performances of 12,747 stock splits between 1927 and 1996. Their conclusion with my emphasis:

Between 1927 and 1996, neither method applied to splits 25 percent or larger finds performance significantly different from zero. Over selected subperiods, subsamples of 2–1 splits restricted by book‐to‐market availability requirements display positive abnormal returns using some methods. However, these samples show small or negligible abnormal returns using the calendar‐time method. Overall, the stock split evidence against market efficiency is neither pervasive [“spreading widely”] nor compelling [“inspiring conviction”].

And their explanations (my emphasis):

Since splits are widely reported and noted, a stock split anomaly would be a particularly flagrant violation of market efficiency. We ask whether returns after stock splits actually do allow investors to capture abnormal returns. Our paper suggests that the stock split does not provide evidence against efficient markets when the entire record is examined.

(…) there is a strong contradiction between earlier and later empirical findings. Fama et al. (1969) (FFJR) find no abnormal performance subsequent to stock splits, whereas both Ikenberry, Rankine, and Stice (1996) (IRS) and Desai and Jain (1997) (DJ) report abnormal returns of seven to eight percent in
the 12 months following stock splits. (…)

Since earlier and later stock split studies employ very different methods, we alleviate the incomparability by uniformly applying a broad set of up-to-date abnormal return and statistical testing procedures to all the subperiods. (…)

Yet another difficulty in assessing long-term performance arises from sampling variation. Mitchell and Stafford (1998) find that “comparison of our estimates to those of other researchers reveals that slight modifications to either the sample or the methodology can produce dramatically different results.”

(…) particular methodological choices do have a marked influence on outcomes. The use by IRS of 2-1 splits together with book-to-market matching gives a restricted sample of 1,802 observations. However, we find 6,918 splits of size greater than 25 percent between 1975 and 1990. We can evaluate all of these if we use size matching only, since the latter does not require that book values be available on COMPUSTAT. For the 6,918 splits, the control and split firms differ by merely 0.55 percent, an inconsequential and insignificant difference.

More recently (2012), Alon Kalay (Columbia U.) and Mathias Kronlund (U. of Illinois) published “The Market Reaction to Stock Split Announcements: Earnings Information After All” analysing 2,097 stock splits between 1988 to 2007. Having read all 49 pages, I can save you time saying that this research is mainly concerned with relative earnings and relative earnings revisions, not long-term price performance (my emphasis).

While many theories have sought to explain the presence of abnormal returns around stock splits announcements, our evidence reaffirms the earnings information based explanation discussed in the accounting literature by Asquith et al. [1989].

We find that analysts increase their earnings estimates around stock split announcements, and that the revision is greater for firms with more opaque information environments [measured by fewer analysts and lower
market capitalization]. Furthermore, the earnings forecast revisions for splitting firms is significantly higher than that for matched firms, indicating that the observed increase in earnings estimates does not result from analysts sluggishly revising their forecasts in response to the splitting firms’ past performance. (…)

Finally, we find that the future earnings growth of the splitting firms is higher than that of matched firms with similar past earnings growth, for up to two years following the split. While both the splitting firms and the matched firms experience lower earnings growth in future periods after the split compared to their own past earnings growth, the future earnings growth of the splitting firms is nevertheless higher than that of the matched firms. This result implies that the earnings growth experienced by the splitting firms before the split is less transitory in nature than the pre-split expectations (as proxied by the performance of ex-ante comparable firms). This result helps explain why analysts revise their expectations of future earnings following a split announcement and increase their earnings estimates. This positive change in expectations is likely to be a primary reason why the market views a stock split announcement as favorable news. (…)

In addition to our results which reaffirm the information hypothesis, we find
that in years when the low-price premium is higher, indicating periods where investor preferences for low-priced stocks increased [smaller caps?], split announcement returns are not higher on average (and significantly negative in some specifications).

Yes, it comes down to earnings and earnings visibility.

I bet stock splits will become more popular.