Tag Archives: S&P500

Sell in May and go away…

This week has been a volatile one on the markets with much of the week’s losses being regained after a “goldilocks” jobs number on Friday. Janet Yellen chipped in with the statement that “equity market values at this point generally are quite high” which resulted in the debates about market valuation been rehashed on the airwaves through the week.

My thoughts on the arguments were last aired in this post. I believe there is merit to the arguments that historical data needs to be normalized to take into account changes in business models within the S&P500 and the impact of changes in profit margins. Yield hungry investors and the lack of alternatives remain strong supports to the market, particularly given the current thinking on when US interest rate rises will begin. Adjustments on historical data such as those proposed by Philosophical Economics in this post make sense to me (although it’s noteworthy he concludes that the market is overvalued despite such adjustments).

Shiller’s latest PE10 metric (adjusted for inflation by the CPI) is currently over 27, about 38% above the average since 1960, as per the graph below.

click to enlargeCAPE PE10 1960 to May2015

I tend to put a lot of stock in the forward PE ratio due to the importance of projected EPS over the next 12 months in this market’s sentiment. Yardeni have some interesting statistics on forward PE metrics by sector in their recent report. Factset also have an interesting report and the graph below from it shows the S&P500 trading just below a 17 multiple.

click to enlargeForward 12 month PE S&P500 May2015

Recently I have become more cautious and the past week’s volatility has caused me to again review my portfolio with a ruthless eye on cutting those positions where my conviction against current valuation is weakest. Making investment decisions based upon what month it is can be justifiably called asinine and the graph below shows that the adage about going away in May hasn’t been a profitable move in recent years.

click to enlarge5 year S&P500 go away in May

However my bearishness is not based upon the calendar month; it’s about valuation and the nervousness I see in the market. To paraphrase a far wiser man than me, all I bring to the table is over 20 years of mistakes. Right now, I would far rather make the mistake of over-caution than passivity.

STOXX600 versus S&P500

There is a nice article over at the Philosophical Economics blog from last month on the dangers of using the Shiller CAPE when the constituents of the underlying indices are constantly evolving. I particularly like the Ship of Theseus thesis being updated by the case of the 1970s group the Little River Band! As always with the Philosophical Economics blog, the post is well worth a read and provides some interesting food for thought in the on-going CAPE debate. I also largely agree with the author’s analysis on Europe and the assertion that monetary union “is going to have to eventually dissolve, or at least undergo a substantial makeover”.

In the post, the author references an April 2013 report from KPMG’s Global Valuation Institute on why more European firms traded below their book value following the financial crisis than US firms. One exhibit, produced below, shows that European firms in the STOXX600 recorded less impairments than S&P500 firms through the crisis. This highlights the sources of the impairments and the differing accounting standards at play.

click to enlargeSTOXX600 vrs S&P500 Impairments

Another exhibit from the report illustrates the different sectors that make up the STOXX600 and S&P500 and the percentage of each sector that traded below book value in early 2013. It would be really interesting to see an update of this exhibit.

click to enlargeSTOXX600 vrs S&P500

An ice age or a golden one?

The debate on whether the US stock market is overvalued, as measured by the cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio (CAPE) as developed by Robert Shiller, or whether CAPE is not relevant due to weaknesses in comparing past cycles with today’s mixed up macro-economic world, continues to rage. I have posted several times on this, most recently here and here. In an article in this week’s Economist, Buttonwood outlines some of the bull and bear arguments on the prospects for US corporate growth and concludes that “America is an exception but not as big an exception as markets suggest”.

Bulls argue that, although the CAPE for the S&P500 is currently historically high at 26.5, earnings growth remains strong as the US economy picks up speed and that at a forward PE around 16 the S&P500 is not at excessive levels indicative of a bubble. The latest statistics compiled by the excellent Yardeni Research from sources such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that earnings, whether S&P reported or operating earnings or NIPA after tax profits from current production or based upon tax returns, continue to trend along a 7% growth projection. Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management, believes that “this recovery will last several more years” and “earnings will grow”. Even the prospect of increased US interest rates does not perturb some bulls who assert that rates will remain low relative to history for some time and that S&P500 firms still have plenty of cash with an aggregate cash-pile of over $1 trillion. The king of the bulls, Jeremy Siegel recently said that “If you look at history, the bull markets do not end when the Fed starts raising interest rates. Bull markets could go on for another 9 months to 2 years“.

Bears point to high corporate profits to GDP and argue that they are as a direct result of low real wages and are therefore unsustainable when normal macro conditions return. Others point to the surge in share buybacks, estimated at nearly $2 trillion by S&P500 firms since 2009, as a significant factor behind EPS growth. Société Générale estimate a 20% fall in Q2 buybacks and (the always to be listened to) Andrew Lapthorne warns that as debt gets dearer firms will find it hard to maintain this key support to stock prices as in the “absence of the largest buyers of US equity going forward is likely to have significant consequence on stock prices”. The (current) king of the bears, Albert Edwards, also at SocGen, provided good copy in a recent report “Is that a hissing I can hear?” saying that “companies themselves have been the only substantive buyers of equity, but the most recent data suggests that this party is over and as profits also stall out, the equity market is now running on fumes“. Edwards believes that an economic Ice Age is possible due to global deflationary pressures. Another contender for king of the bears is fund manager John Hussman and he recently commented: “make no mistake, this is an equity bubble, and a highly advanced one“.

One commentator who I also respect is the author behind the excellent blog Philosophical Economics. A post last month on CAPE highlighted the obvious but often forgotten fact thatthe market’s valuation arises as an inadvertent byproduct of the equilibriation of supply and demand: the process through which the quantity of equity being supplied by sellers achieves an equilibrium with the quantity of equity being demanded by buyers”. As such, the current macro-economic situation makes any reference to an average or a “normal period” questionable. The post is well worth a read and concludes that the author expects the market to be volatile but continue its upward trajectory, albeit at a slower pace, until signs that the real economy is in trouble.

For me, the easy position is to remain negative as I see valuations and behaviour that frightens me (hello AAPL?). I see volatility but not necessarily a major correction. Unless political events get messy, I think the conclusion in a previous Buttonwood piece still holds true: “investors are reluctant bulls; there seems no alternative”. Sticking only to high conviction names and careful risk management through buying insurance where possible remain my core principles. That and trying to keep my greed in check…..

High Beta Follow-On

Following on from the last post on high beta delights, I had a look at a S&P high beta ETF (SPHB) against the S&P500 as well as a S&P low volatility ETF (SPLV) to test the assertion that the latest run in the market is a new phase whereby investors who missed out on early gains are taking on more risk in the form of high beta stocks to catch up. The two ETFs above have only been around since mid-2011 so I selected the start of 2012 until last Friday as the timeframe.

The graph below shows that the high beta ETF underperformed both the S&P500 and the low volatility ETF for most of 2012 (particularly after the May 2012 fall). For much of 2013 however, and particularly since June 2013, the high beta ETF has outperformed the S&P500 and significantly outperformed (by approx. 20%) the low volatility ETF. Also, since August the low volatility ETF has underperformed against the S&P500. This seems to confirm the assertion that investors are chasing returns and increasing risk.

click to enlargeS&P high beta