Rating Risks

The latest World Economic Forum report on global risks reflects the common concerns of its almost 750 global contributors across multiple disciplines. Such reports are often poor predictors of issues (e.g. the emergence of the migrant issue in Europe) but do reflect current thinking as the graphic below on the changing risks by likelihood and impact illustrates.

click to enlargeWEF Global Risks 2007 to 2016

It’s interesting that China hasn’t made it onto either list since 2010. The report has the following to say about a slowing Chinese economy:

The government faces a dilemma. If it tightens credit conditions, it could reduce investment more quickly than consumption can increase to compensate, and cause massive defaults among struggling and heavily leveraged companies. This could mean a much more severe economic slowdown, potentially causing a surge in unemployment and social unrest. However, if the government lets more credit flow to avoid these destabilizing defaults, it risks further increasing the indebtedness of underperforming industries and creating bigger problems down the line.

Unsurprisingly, different regions in the world have different concerns and it’s interesting to compare and contrast each.

click to enlargeWEF Regional Perspective Top 3 Risks 2016

Climate change, extreme weather and water issues are ever present risks. At least it’s reassuring to see that the 5th IPCC assessment report (as per this post) does seem to have moved the debate on from whether we humans are impacted climate to the speed of implementing the mitigation and adaption actions required. As the WEF report states, the Paris Agreement reached last December is a positive step although “to date, nearly 190 governments have submitted their climate action plans, covering over 95% of total global emissions” and “these efforts alone will not suffice as even the most optimistic estimates suggest that these pledges taken together would contain warming only to 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels.” Over 2.0°C is commonly believed to be the point where things could get extremely unpredictable. The Paris Agreement is however better than previous efforts and therefore represent progress.

Sagacious Soros

The thoughts of George Soros never sounded so sensible to me than in this Bloomberg interview on the global issues in our world today. Its worth a view if you have 30 odd minutes spare.

http://www.bloomberg.com/api/embed/iframe?id=yIRcJcfFSdylv6JJqKI1TQ

Apple below $100

In a market like this one, it’s impossible to tell what is going to happen next. The smell of fear has been in the air with greed cowered by uncertainty. Greed may push back soon with earnings, and particularly guidance, dictating the short term path whilst oil and China, amongst other macro factors, will continue to dominate the overall direction.

Overall I remain cautious on equities with a downward bias. I am sticking to my conviction stocks whilst keeping cash on the sidelines until I find a blatant bargain or two. Notwithstanding that stance, it’s always good to look at your positions and see if some risk management re-weighting is called for. And that’s the reason for a quick look over Apple before its earnings next Tuesday.

Apple is in a hapless position currently and likely has to blow away the December quarter estimates (on the number of iPhones sold, the average price, and the gross margin received) PLUS give a strong March quarter guidance to move up in a meaningful way. Given that a repeat of the outstanding results of last December’s quarter (see post here) compared to current expectations is improbable, I would suggest Apple could trade around or below $100 for a while yet. Analysts, whilst screaming about its valuation, have become increasing negative on the December quarter and guidance for their Q2 quarter. Apple may struggle to come in much above the top end of its guidance of 77.5 million iPhones (it has come in above guidance for 5 consecutive quarters albeit at a steadily reducing level above the top estimate).

The geographic split of revenue, as per the graph below, will also be closely watched to see if China’s economy is impacting Asian growth.

click to enlargeAAPL Revenue by region Q42015

Despite its best efforts, Apple remains primarily a phone company with last year’s iPhone revenues making up two-thirds of the total, as per the graph below (with my estimates for Q1).

click to enlargeAAPL Revenue by product Q42015

I played with some estimates to stress the view on an AAPL valuation below $100. Taking a jaundice view of adjusting average analyst non-GAAP estimates for 2016 and 2017 plus some pessimistic estimates of my own on 2016 and 2017 (with iPhone slowing to sales of 220 million and 200 million compared to around 230 million for 2015), I estimated the forward PEs, excluding net cash (currently around $150 billion), as per the graph below (based upon diluted GAAP EPS, not the adjusted EPS analysts love) using tonight’s close of $96.30. The multiples are quarterly point estimates using the share price one month after the quarter’s end.

click to enlargeAAPL Forward 12 Month PE Ratios Q4 2015

The graph above clearly shows the swings in sentiment on Apple over recent years as the market grapples with the future demand for the iPhone after each upgrade cycle. Tuesday will indicate whether the current concerns about iPhone sales and margins peaking are justified. Other concerns, such as a possible $8 billion tax bill from the EU, pale in comparison to those iPhone concerns. Notwithstanding these real concerns, forward multiples of below 8 look too low to me given Apple’s operating record (unless you buy into the Apple could be the next Nokia thesis which I don’t).

By way of a comparison, my estimate for a similar graph for Google is below (again using diluted GAAP EPS). Google will be another stock where earnings for Q4 will be very interesting as they split out their figures in line with the new Alphabet structure and (maybe) demonstrate again their new emphasis on cost control. Expectations look high based upon its current valuation.

click to enlargeGoogle Forward 12 Month PE Ratios Q4 2015

The comparison does reflect positively on Apple’s current valuation multiple and I’m happy to hold the AAPL position I have. A key outcome from the AAPL earnings call will be if Cook can provide sufficient catalysts for Apple’s value to trade significantly above $100.

As always, time will tell.

 

Follow-0n Evening 26th after earnings: Over the next few days and weeks, I’m sure the chatter about Apple and the iPhone will likely get over-bearing. The delicately posed share price of $99.99 before earnings will come under pressure. Q1 revenues were at the lower range of expectations and Q2 guidance at $50-$53 billion is weaker than expected. China revenues showed slowing growth. On the positive side, the average revenue per iPhone in Q1 was higher than expected and operating margins were strong. I revised down my estimates for AAPL’s 2016 and 2017 diluted EPS (to $9.15 and $8.60) and iPhone sales to 210 million and 190 million. The revised revenue splits and forward PE multiples (at share price of $99.99) are shown below. Thesis, as per post above, on AAPL’s valuation remains basically unchanged although the share price see some selling pressure in the short term.

click to enlargeAAPL Revenue by region Q12016

click to enlargeAAPL Revenue by product Q12016

click to enlargeAAPL Forward 12 Month PE Ratios Q1 2016.png

Divine Diversification

There have been some interesting developments in the US insurance sector on the issue of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). Metlife announced plans to separate some of their US life retail units to avoid the designation whilst shareholder pressure is mounting on AIG to do the same. These events are symptoms of global regulations designed to address the “too big to fail” issue through higher capital requirements. It is interesting however that these regulations are having an impact in the insurance sector rather than the more impactful issue within the banking sector (this may have to do with the situation where the larger banks will retain their SIFI status unless the splits are significant).

The developments also fly in the face of the risk management argument articulated by the insurance industry that diversification is the answer to the ills of failure. This is the case AIG are arguing to counter calls for a breakup. Indeed, the industry uses the diversification of risk in their defences against the sector being deemed of systemic import, as the exhibit below from a report on systemic risk in insurance from an industry group, the Geneva Association, in 2010 illustrates. Although the point is often laboured by the insurance sector (there still remains important correlations between each of the risk types), the graph does make a valid point.

click to enlargeEconomic Capital Breakdown for European Banks and Insurers

The 1st of January this year marked the introduction of the new Solvency II regulatory regime for insurers in Europe, some 15 years after work begun on the new regime. The new risk based solvency regime allows insurers to use their own internal models to calculate their required capital and to direct their risk management framework. A flurry of internal model approvals by EU regulators were announced in the run-up to the new year, although the amount of approvals was far short of that anticipated in the years running up to January 2016. There will no doubt be some messy teething issues as the new regime is introduced. In a recent post, I highlighted the hoped for increased disclosures from European insurers on their risk profiles which will result from Solvency II. It is interesting that Fitch came out his week and stated that “Solvency II metrics are not comparable between insurers due to their different calculation approaches and will therefore not be a direct driver of ratings” citing issues such as the application of transitional measures and different regulator approaches to internal model approvals.

I have written many times on the dangers of overtly generous diversification benefits (here, here, here, and here are just a few!) and this post continues that theme. A number of the large European insurers have already published details of their internal model calculations in annual reports, investor and analyst presentations. The graphic below shows the results from 3 large insurers and 3 large reinsurers which again illustrate the point on diversification between risk types.

click to enlargeInternal Model Breakdown for European Insurers and Reinsurers

The reinsurers show, as one would expect, the largest diversification benefit between risk types (remember there is also significant diversification benefits assumed within risk types, more on that later) ranging from 35% to 40%. The insurers, depending upon business mix, only show between 20% and 30% diversification across risk types. The impact of tax offsets is also interesting with one reinsurer claiming a further 17% benefit! A caveat on these figures is needed, as Fitch points out; as different firms use differing terminology and methodology (credit risk is a good example of significant differences). I compared the diversification benefits assumed by these firms against what the figure would be using the standard formula correlation matrix and the correlations assuming total independence between the risk types (e.g. square root of the sum of squares), as below.

click to enlargeDiversification Levels within European Insurers and Reinsurers

What can be seen clearly is that many of these firms, using their own internal models, are assuming diversification benefits roughly equal to that between those in the standard formula and those if the risk types were totally independent. I also included the diversification levels if 10% and 25% correlations were added to the correlation matrix in the standard formula. A valid question for these firms by investors is whether they are being overgenerous on their assumed diversification. The closer to total independence they are, the more sceptical I would be!

Assumed diversification within each risk type can also be material. Although I can understand arguments on underwriting risk types given different portfolio mixes, it is hard to understand the levels assumed within market risk, as the graph below on the disclosed figures from two firms show. Its hard for individual firms to argue they have material differing expectations of the interaction between interest rates, spreads, property, FX or equities!

click to enlargeDiversification Levels within Market Risk

Diversification within the life underwriting risk module can also be significant (e.g. 40% to 50%) particularly where firms write significant mortality and longevity type exposures. Within the non-life underwriting risk module, diversification between the premium, reserving and catastrophe risks also add-up. The correlations in the standard formula on diversification between business classes vary between 25% and 50%.

By way of a thought experiment, I constructed a non-life portfolio made up of five business classes (X1 to X5) with varying risk profiles (each class set with a return on equity expectation of between 10% and 12% at a capital level of 1 in 500 or 99.8% confidence level for each), as the graph below shows. Although many aggregate profiles may reflect ROEs of 10% to 12%, in my view, business classes in the current market are likely to have a more skewed profile around that range.

click to enlargeSample Insurance Portfolio Profile

I then aggregated the business classes at varying correlations (simple point correlations in the random variable generator before the imposition of the differing distributions) and added a net expense load of 5% across the portfolio (bringing the expected combined ratio from 90% to 95% for the portfolio). The different resulting portfolio ROEs for the different correlation levels shows the impact of each assumption, as below.

click to enlargePortfolio Risk Profile various correlations

The experiment shows that a reasonably diverse portfolio that can be expected to produce a risk adjusted ROE of between 14% and 12% (again at a 1 in 500 level)with correlations assumed at between 25% and 50% amongst the underlying business classes. If however, the correlations are between 75% and 100% then the same portfolio is only producing risk adjusted ROEs of between 10% and 4%.

As correlations tend to increase dramatically in stress situations, it highlights the dangers of overtly generous diversification assumptions and for me it illustrates the need to be wary of firms that claim divine diversification.

Image

RIP David Bowie

Bowie quote quicksand