Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Signal ....and Noise in European Stocks

Monday Feb 4 European stocks represented by FEZ  the EURO Stoxx 50 closed the day down 4.7%. from the close on Friday Feb 1.

This from the marketwatch /WSJ website is typical of the  explanation for the decline yesterday throughout the media and market pundit commentary

"... investors fled the region’s bourses on Monday, as political jitters in Italy and Spain rattled sentiment and stoked new concerns of a euro-zone breakup. 
In Spain, the opposition party called for Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to resign amid allegations of corruption, fueling fears of a general election that could pave the way for anti-euro parties.
Here are the top 10 holdings of FEZ. There is one Spanish bank and one Italian company ENI which is a global energy company. The list is composed of industry leading multinationals competing with other global giants such as those in the US. 
Top 10 Holdings (39.79% of Total Assets)
CompanySymbol% Assets
TOTALFP.PA5.47
SANOFISAN.PA5.43
SIEMENS NSIE.DE4.32
Basf SEBFFAF.DE4.13
Banco Santander SABCDRF.BC3.97
BAYER NBAYN.DE3.75
SAPSAP.DE3.54
ENIENI.MI3.10
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEVAHBIF3.09
Allianz SEALIZF.DE2.99
According to Yahoo Finance FEZ has a p/e of 10.93 a 21% discount to the S+P 500 at 13.25.
I cannot think of a credible economic reason for the Euro Stoxx 50 to selloff 5% based on the news from Spain and Italy. Stock prices can deviate from value in the short term but seldom in the long term. One needs to distinguish signal (long term moves) from noise (especially daily moves). It seems pretty clear to me that yesterday's move was noise.
Here's bloomberg at the Feb 5 European market close.
Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- European stocks climbed the most in almost four weeks as companies from Munich Re to BP Plc beat earnings estimates and a measure of euro-area services output shrank less than forecast
and Reuters recorded this gem from a market participant
"Yesterday's spotlight on Southern Europe was just an excuse to book profits and catch our breath. The trend is still positive, and clients are slowly coming back to equities," said Patrice Peroise, a trader at Kepler Capital Markets.

As of this writing  a little over 2 hours before the market close in the US. FEZ is +1.6% for the day.



The WSJ Forgets About Dividends and Total Return...And Misses the Reason for the Move In High Yield Bonds

In the never ending effort of financial journalists to read the tea leaves of short term market moves, the analysis is often...to say the least shoddy. Take the WSJ's effort today to find some major turning point in short term movements to HYG the high yield bond ETF.


The iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond exchange-traded fund (HYG) suffered its seventh-straight loss Monday, closing at its lowest level since Dec. 28. That is the longest losing streak for the fund since a nine-session stretch ending April 10, 2012.
The HYG slumped 0.4% to $93.09 Monday and has shed 1.9% since peaking at a 4 1/2-year high of $94.88 Jan. 24. The S&P 500 lost 1.2% Monday to 1495.71, after having closed at its highest level in more than five years Friday
Seems like the WSJ forgot about something called dividends and total return. Investors capture total return not price only return. So even though HYG closed at its lowest level since Dec 28, HYG investors have had a total return of 

Furthermore the WSJ suggests that the move in HYG reflects concern about the riskiness of the bonds in terms of credit risk
While the HYG’s fall could be seen by some as cash potentially leaving bonds for riskier assets–potentially a bullish sign–equity investors shouldn’t count on that money finding its way into higher-risk stocks.
Nearly 100% of the HYG’s holdings are corporate bonds from companies like Sprint, Chrysler, and Ally Financial with credit ratings below investment grade, also known as junk bonds. Given their risk profile, high-yield bonds tend to trade a lot more like stocks than investment-grade bonds. Over the past two years, the correlation coefficient between the HYG and the S&P 500 is 0.89, where 1 indicates perfect correlation. Meanwhile, the correlation between the HYG and the iSharesBarclays BARC.LN +1.29% 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (IEF) is 0.27.
While the HYG’s recent slide is no guarantee a stock selloff is imminent, bulls who have enjoyed a nice run over the past few months may not want to tempt fate.
While the point about long term correlations is correct, it is certainly not the explanation for the selloff in HYG, NYG an intermediate term high yield bond fund sold off because of interest rate changes. All intermediate term bond ETFs sold off during the period. In fact HYG has performed better than investment grade intermediate term corporate bonds (LQD) and intermediate term treasuries (IEF). So in fact high yield investors because of the higher yield did better than other bond investors in intermediate term .

Further proof that it was the interest rates and not a change in perception of credit risk that drove the price change can be seen in the performance of the short term high yield bond ETF SJNK. If the downward move was driven by credit risk and not interest rate risk one would expect intermediate term(HYG) and short term (SJNK) high yield bond funds to move in tandem. But the exact opposite happened...sjnk went up when intermediate term investment grade bonds and intermediate term treasury bonds went down. In other words it was the interest rate risk not the credit risk that explains the declines in intermediate term investment grade and treasury bonds...and the underperformance of intermediate term vs. short term high yield bonds.


Bar charts top = total return bottom = volatility Dec 28,2011 – Feb 4, 2012

 GROWTH OF $100,000 Dec 28 2012 –Feb4, 2012 (HYG gold, SJNK blue  LQD black IEF green)










GROWTH OF $100,000 (HYG gold, SJNK blue  LQD black IEF green)


Friday, February 1, 2013

A Pretty Savvy Move In My Opinion By The Central Bank of Israel...WIth the Assistance of Goldman Sachs

I'll leave others to make a judgement


The 10.5-year and 30-year bonds will help the treasury close the projected giant hole in the government's 2013 and 2014 budgets.
Some $1 billion worth of 10.5 year bonds were issued, with a yield of 3.213 percent, 125 basis points above the United States's Federal Reserve rate for 10-year treasury bonds.
Another $1 billion worth of 30-year bonds were issued with a yield of 4.588 percent, some 145 basis points above the Fed rate for 30-year treasury bonds.
Investor demand for the bond issues exceeded $9 billion, some 4.5 times the actual amount issued. In response to the high demand from large strategic investors, Israel's treasury decided to issue more 30-year bonds than originally planned, reaching a total of $1 billion. The issuing of such a large number of 30-year bonds is reflection of the treasury's policy of increasing the average duration of Israeli government debt and significantly reducing the risk of rolling over government debt.
"This is a vote of confidence in the Israeli economy," said Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, following the successful bond issue. "The fact that we continued to reduce debt relative to GDP in all recent years…has generated confidence among investors in the strength of the Israeli economy. This achievement is particularly remarkable given the ongoing debt crisis in Europe."   
The latest bond issue was the Israeli government's 10thdollar-denominated bond issue. The previous foreign currency-denominated bond issue was in January 2012. Israeli government dollar-denominated bonds are used by investors as a reference point for pricing the systemic risk in the Israeli economy. The latest bond issue represents the lowest cost for a dollar-denominated bond issue paid by the Israeli government and historically narrow interest rate spreads.
By the end of the bond offering, 95 percent of the bonds were acquired by non-Israeli investors hailing from 34 different countries.
Barclays, Goldman Sachs Group and Citigroup were the underwriters of the issue.
Stanley Fischer the esteemed Central Bank Governor announced his resignation the day before the issuance.
Here's what happened to the bonds

Did the State of Israel make a monkey out of you?

Global investors are entitled to feel duped by the resignation of Stanley Fischer less than a day after Israel raised a $2 billion overseas debt offering.




On Monday night, Israel raised $2 billion in an overseas offering of debt, in two series: one of 10-year bonds and one of long-term 30-year bonds. The accountant general's people over at the Finance Ministry said the investment community pounced on the debt. Demand soared to $9 billion, some 4.5 times the amount Israel sought to raise.
Moreover, the offerings closed at very low levels of interest, indicating that investors feel warm and fuzzy about Israeli state debt. The 30-year bonds closed at a spread of 1.45% over comparable U.S. government bonds, while the 10-year bonds closed at a spread of 1.25%. Those are very low spreads. They indicate, in theory, that investors feel Israeli debt isn't that much riskier than American debt.
The heavy demand coupled with the low spreads boil down to this: Investors badly wanted the goods. The demand and spreads are a sort of trophy for the Israeli economy and its leaders, and indeed the people over at the accountant general's office were strutting around like peacocks.
It's such a pity that the celebrations were abruptly truncated not a day later. The very next afternoon, Tuesday, Stanley Fischer up and quit as governor of the Bank of Israel, 22 months before his contract runs out.
Fischer will be staying on until June, but in response to the announcement, Israeli bonds – such hot stuff just the night before – abruptly dropped 1% in price.
Hmm..savvy time for the central bank + Goldman Sachs involved in the offering....
shab... shal .)
Lw

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Investors Regain Enthusiasm for Stocks...Just as They Hit All Time Highs....Not A Recipe for Long Term Investment Success


50 year SP 500 chart 



You can call it herding, momentum or investors just investing with their eyes firmly fixed on the rearview mirror. Whatever the label, it is no surprise that as the S+P 500 hit near an all time high, investors suddenly have a renewed appetite for stocks.  Reports in the NYT and WSJ wrote of renewed interest in stocks among individual investors.
From the NYT:
As Worries Ebb, Small Investors Propel Markets
Americans seem to be falling in love with stocks again.
Millions of people all but abandoned the market after the 2008 financial crisis, but now individual investors are pouring more money than they have in years into stock mutual funds. The flood, prompted by fading economic threats and better news on housing and jobs, has helped propel the broad market to within striking distance of its highest nominal level ever.
“You’ve got a real sea change in investor outlook,” said Andrew Wilkinson, the chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak Associates.

Not surprisingly the near record high for stocks has triggered….record money flows into stock funds, domestic and intermational. From Barrons. A widely watched survey of individual investors (AAII) shows a big increase in bullishness. Not surpisingly this survey is regarded by professionals as a contrary indicator.

Equity Funds Set For Record $55B Monthly Inflow: TrimTabs

By Brendan Conway
Investors are feeding money to stock funds at a record-breaking pace this month, according to TrimTabs Investment Research.
$55.0 billion has bee invested in all equity mutual funds and exchange-traded funds in January, by the firm’s count.  The previous record: $53.7 billion in February 2000, “which was just before the technology bubble popped.”….
When it comes to ETFs, investors have shown a heavy preference for emerging markets and global stock funds. The top asset gathering ETF this month is iShares MSCI Emerging Markets(EEM), whose net inflows stand at $3.4 billion. The tech-heavy PowerShares QQQ (QQQ) is next in line, gaining $1.5 billion. Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets (VWO) is third at $1.4 billion.iShares MSCI EAFE (EFA) and WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity (DXJ) round out the top five with $1.1 and $1 billion, respectively.

This seems like a  clear example of investors chasing returns. It’s hard to find anything that has fundamentally changed in the economic picture in the last few months. America may not have fallen off the “dreaded fiscal cliff”  but neither has there been any real movement in the budget issues and ongoing debate over tax increases vs spending cuts. And whatever improvement has been present in the economy has been going on in fits and starts for at least a year. There  was no recent economic data that showed a strong acceleration in growth or reduction in unemployement. In fact today's release of consumer confidence survey  showed a decline.

It seems like the only reason for the change  in sentiment and renewed  buying of stocks is….stocks have been going up. Investors feel that stocks are somewhat “less risky” now that they have  risen significantly. This is almost never the case, the higher the price of the asset the riskier it is.

 A stock market at relatively high valuations is more likely to turn in poor performance going forward than a beaten down asset . Price can deviate from value in the short term . Stocks that have had a big run up are close to full value if not overvalued while the reverse would be clear for an asset after a big decline in price. 

A widely used measure of stock market valuation based on long term data is the schiller pe ratio. 

As can be seen below


... while certainly not in bubble territory the stock market measured by the schiller p/e is certainly not chearp. Based on shorter term data based on current earnings the p/e of the sp 500 is now at 17.49 around 13% above its long term mean average of 15.49. While I wont make a market prediction it's safe to say that those who are piling into stocks now are not buying into a cheap market.

The real path to long term investment success is to stick to an asset allocation that meets the investors personal financial circumstances and risk tolerance. For investors who do that, a share increase in the price of an asset offers the opportunity to rebalance. Such investors will be returning their portfolios to align with their long term allocation: selling assets that have appreciated sharply and buying those that have underperformed.  Such investors are “selling high and buying low” when rebalancing. Looked at another way they are effectively  selling highly valued riskier assets to the performance chancing herd that has a refound “appetitie for stocks.

Research has shown pretty clearly who will perform better. Individual investors (as evidenced by money flow data) inevitably buy high late into market rallies and of course often liquidate on the selloff. On the other hand research shows that holding a balanced allocation and rebalancing to keep the allocation in place s gains higher risk adjusted returns….and doubtless affs far more to those investors that buy and sell at the times indicated by large money flows in and out of stocks.

..In other words buy and hold ...or more precisely buy a balanced portfolio and rebalance is not "dead"...and in my view market timing was never viable.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Actually I May Have Already Found an Article I Agree With More

FT again Same Authors Again and a similar title

Investors must rediscover their patience



I wish I could convince all my clients to look at their investing this way
I'll respect FT policy and provide just the link here.

For those who dont want to read the whole thing. Here's the takeaway:


  • Momentum is seductive but in the long run creates high turnover and poor long termresults. ....But paradoxically since it provides the best potential for managers to satisfy the short term performance preoccupation of investors..both investors and their managers follow short term strategies...which are sure to produce poor long term results:

The saddest aspect of this is that long-term investors have been drawn into the momentum game. Symptoms of this include the emphasis on relative performance, leading to risk being equated with tracking error – a recipe for herding. Asset owners cannot duck responsibility for this. To keep their agents on a short leash, performance is invariably compared with a market value-based (in effectively herd-weighted) benchmark and funds are switched from recent poor performers to better ones, amplifying momentum.



  • Price can deviate from value in the short term...investors focus too much on price and short term returns.


  • Long term investors can benefit from price returning to value but only if they have a long term approach.


The authors have this advice for investors and their managers:


  • Limit portfolio turnover to 30% of a portfolio (I would put the number much lower)
  • Switch away from benchmarking to market capitalization weight indices which ae subject to distortions due to momentum ("bubble risk)
  • Lengthen the time frame for evaluating portfolio performance.

I don't think I Have Read an Article I Agree With More than This One....

From the FT...always a far more useful read than the NYT or WSJ

Here summarizing an academic paper by Paul Wooley and Dmitri Vayanos of London School of Economics

I respect FT policy and just provide the takeaway from the article entitled


Tackling the two-headed monster of efficient markets theory and the principal-agent problem


  • Traditional investors are destined to be frustrated they give money to a money manager that fails to outperform the relevant inded. "Being a traditional investor sucks, doesn’t it?"

  • Being a traditional manager "sucks too". Investors expect alpha but dont want a policy that differs "too much from the benchmark indices"
What should investors do:

  • Focus on Long Term Results
  • Limit turnover in the portfolo
  • Invest for the long term focus on the long term not short term price movements
  • Dont benchmark to cap weighted indices which have higher weightings to assets that are highly valued and subject to poor long term results
  • Avoid or limit performance based conpensation or tied them only to long term performance
  • Avoid "sophistate "new" strategies and "alternative investments" even if they may offer some advantages those are likely to be offset by high fees and lack of liquidity
  • Insist on transparency of the portfolios
sounds good to me...and it's what I do with my clients...and hope my clients will do for me.


Unfortunately for me this is hard to do for investors...which means I either suffer "career risk" with clients withdrawing assets based on short term performance.