Durability of the US Bull Market

 

“Having insurance doesn’t guarantee good health outcomes, but it is a critical factor.” ― Irwin Redlener

“Seeing the bigger picture opens your eyes to what is the truth.” ― Wadada Leo Smith

As the key indices in US equity market are once again approaching all-time highs, we look to assess the durability of the bull market in the face of a plethora of negative headlines and rising valuations. We also identify a few leaders in the retail sector as long ideas.

 

Technology Leadership

 

When a bull market is turning over, the tell tale signs can usually be found in the segment that has led the bull charge. And as we all know, technology has been the clear leader in the most recent incarnation of the US equity bull market.

 

The below monthly chart is a ratio of the NASDAQ 100 Index to S&P 500 Index. The ratio is now in territory witnessed during the tail-end of the tech bubble. The difference this time ― ominous last words ― being the steady, as opposed to parabolic, rise in the ratio.

 

 

NDX Index (NASDAQ 100 Stock Inde 2019-06-13 09-39-55

 

The quarterly rate-of-change of the above ratio, shown in the chart below,  is another way to see the stark difference in the relative rise of the NASDAQ 100 over the last ten years as compared to the relative rise during the tech bubble.

 

NDX Index (NASDAQ 100 Stock Inde 2019-06-13 10-22-11.png

 

What the rate-of-change, or momentum, chart does suggest is that the recent waxing-and-waning in technology stocks, be it due to slowing earnings or fears over antitrust action against the mega-capitalisation technology companies, is still within the normal bounds of volatility.

 

If the NASDAQ 100-to-S&P 500 ratio fails to make new highs in the coming weeks and months or there is a marked deterioration in the ratio’s momentum, we would become concerned about the durability of technology’s market leadership.

 

Growth and Value

 

Other ratios in tech bubble territory are those of the S&P Growth Index-to-S&P 500 Index and the S&P Growth Index-to-S&P Value Index.

 

SGX Index (S&P 500 Growth Index) 2019-06-13 10-17-07

 

 

SGX Index (S&P 500 Growth Index) 2019-06-13 10-16-27

 

We are increasingly convinced that a barbell strategy should be applied today in managing equity exposures. With tech and other growth names on one side and value names and precious metals on the other. And if tech and growth continue to rally, investors should re-balance  regularly to avoid any lopsidedness in their portfolios.

 

Heavy Truck Sales

 

The below chart compares the S&P500 Index (magenta) to heavy truck sales in the US (orange). Heavy trucks sales are a barometer for economic activity in the US. Heavy truck sales rolled over in 2000 and in 2006 ahead of the cyclical peaks in the US equity market. Heavy trucks sales have thus far remained strong.

 

USASHVTK Index (United States He 2019-06-14 14-46-20.jpg

 

Cyclical to Defensive Stocks

 

The below chart is a ratio of the MSCI USA Cyclical Stocks Index to the MSCI USA Defensive Stocks. We see this ratio as a gauge of ‘animal spirits’. A rising line suggests a preference for profit over preservation.

 

The ratio has recently broken out to fifteen year highs. This is a but surprising given that Treasury yields have come in quite a bit in recent months, which should have benefited defensive sectors such as consumer staples and utilities.

 

MU704866 Index (MSCI USA Cyclica 2019-06-13 15-24-54.png

 

We would avoid or reduce allocations to bond-proxies such as utilities and REITs for now and search for alternative sources of diversification for portfolios with growth and technology heavy allocations.

 

The Smart Money Flow Index

 

The technology led rally from the lows recorded in February last year was not accompanied by a recovery in the Smart Money Flow Index. Rather, the index was hitting new lows just as the NASDAQ 100 was approaching new highs.

 

The rally in 2019, however, has coincided with a rebound in the Smart Money Flow Index. If the index starts retreating again we would be concerned.

 

SMART Index (Smart Money Flow In 2019-06-13 14-03-59.png

 

Corporate Yield Spreads

 

The below chart is the yield spread of Corporate BBB bonds to the US 10 Year Treasury.

 

Corporate yield spreads remain below the levels reached during the “volmageddon”on 2018 despite the sharp drop in oil prices in recent weeks. If yield spread breach the 1.65 per cent level in the below time series, we would think about scaling back equity exposures. Moreover, if we see exuberance take yield spreads below 2018 lows, we would worry that we are entering the “melt-up” phase in the bull market and also look to sell into strength.

 

CSI BBB Index (US Corp BBB_Baa - 2019-06-13 13-10-40.png

 

Consumer Leaders

 

If the Federal Reserve cuts interests rates, the US consumer will benefit from lower debt servicing costs on its mortgages and other debt. This should boost consumer spending, at least at the margin. We identify retail leaders that we add to our ideas on the long side.

 

ETSY  $ETSY

 

(The bottom panel is the relative strength to the SPDR Retail ETF $XRT.)

 

ETSY US Equity (Etsy Inc) Retail 2019-06-14 14-59-54

 

Five Below  $FIVE

 

FIVE US Equity (Five Below Inc) 2019-06-14 15-00-53

 

Under Armour $UAA

 

UAA US Equity (Under Armour Inc) 2019-06-14 15-00-22

 

 

This post should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to purchase any particular security, strategy or investment product. References to specific securities and issuers are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations to purchase or sell such securities. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.

A Week of Plenty: Parsing the Big and the Small

 

“A lot happens in our everyday life, but it always happens within the same routine, and more than anything else it has changed my perspective of time. For, while previously I saw time as a stretch of terrain that had to be covered, with the future as a distant prospect, hopefully a bright one, and never boring at any rate, now it is interwoven with our life here and in a totally different way. Were I to portray this with a visual image it would have to be that of a boat in a lock: life is slowly and ineluctably raised by time seeping in from all sides. Apart from the details, everything is always the same. And with every passing day the desire grows for the moment when life will reach the top, for the moment when the sluice gates open and life finally moves on.” – Karl Ove Knausgård, Norwegian novelist

 

There are a lot of interesting and market moving developments that have either transpired or come to light over the course of the last week or so. This week we take a break from taking a deep(ish)-dive into a given theme and instead parse through some of these developments.

 

US Market Breadth

 As US markets have recovered and moved within a whisker of the year-to-date highs recorded in January, we have witnessed a growing chorus of criticism on the robustness of the recent rally. One of the more common criticisms is how only a handful of stocks – namely Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Microsoft and Salesforce.com – are responsible for the positive returns of the S&P500 Index year to date and were it not for these stocks, the market would be in the red.

To that we counter with two pieces of evidence.

The equally weighted index of the constituents of the S&P500 Index, as of Wednesday’s close, is 2.3 per cent from its January highs.

SPW Index (S&P 500 Equal Weighte 2018-07-26 13-45-34.jpg

 

The equally weighted index of the constituents of the Nasdaq 100 Index, as of Wednesday’s close, is above its January highs.

NDXE Index (NASDAQ 100 Equal Wei 2018-07-26 13-47-07

 

There have been and continue to be plenty of opportunities to outperform the broad market indices without the need to invest in the FAANG or other large cap tech stocks. You just need to do the work.

There are of course other criticisms including valuations, such as price-to-sales and price-to-earnings multiples, and the near record high net profit margins being achieved by companies, which critics argue should all mean revert over time and said reversion should lead to a sharp drop stock prices.

With respect to valuations, we counter with two arguments: (1) valuations can mean revert by either prices dropping or sales / earnings increasing, as the quarterly results of the current reporting season have demonstrated, valuations in many instances are adjusting on higher sales and / or earnings; and (2) rich valuations are not in and of themselves a precursor for market corrections, rich valuations are a necessary condition for equity market corrections but not a concurrent one.

Turning to record high profit margins as a bearish argument against owning US stocks, we counter that such arguments do not adjust for the change in the composition of major US equity market indices. Once the S&P500 Index, for example, is adjusted for the changes in sector weights, profit margins do not appear to be anywhere near as high as they appear to be without adjusting the index for changes in sector allocations. This is because the current heavyweights of the index, namely tech and healthcare stocks, tend to generate much higher margins than businesses in other sectors that dominated index historically.

The changes in the composition of the index also go some way to explaining the high level of the price-to-sales ratio the market is trading at – at risk of stating the obvious, higher margin businesses capture much more of their sales as profits than do lower margin businesses, and thus high margin businesses are bound to trade at higher multiples of sales than do low margin businesses.

 

 Is Amazon the biggest threat to Google’s dominance in search-driven advertising?

Quoting Brian Olsavsky, Amazon’s chief financial officer, from the company’s quarterly earnings update:

 “A big contributor to the quarter and the last few quarters obviously has been strong growth in our highest profitability businesses and also advertising.”

The CFO further added that Amazon is working to automate tasks for advertisers and to help media buyers measure the results.

Last quarter, Amazon’s revenue from the advertising sales category and some other items grew 132 per cent year-over-year to US dollars 2.2 billion. Quarterly revenue of over US dollars 2 billion is not to be scoffed at. More importantly, this revenue is coming straight out of Google’s share of the advertising market.

The appeal of advertising on Amazon for advertisers is obvious: customers searching on Amazon are already there with the intent of buying something. With Amazon controlling close to 45 per cent of total online sales in the US and perpetually increasing its product offering, it becomes progressively more convenient for online shoppers to begin their product searches with Amazon and not Google. If the propensity of consumers to being their product searches with Amazon over Google continues to increase, the proclivity of advertisers to spend their dollars on Amazon over Google is also likely to follow suit.

How Google responds to this challenge is something we await with much intrigue.

We expect Amazon to be the first company to achieve a trillion dollar market capitalisation.

 

Japanese Government Bonds

Global bond markets have been roiled by speculation that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is considering tweaking its policy stance and could scale back its stimulus programme. Yields on 10-year Japanese government hit a fresh twelve-month high on Thursday, forcing the BoJ’s in making a rare intervention in the bond market to push yields on the 10-year government bonds back below 10 basis points.

In practical terms, the BoJ currently guides the yields on 10 year government bonds to be within the range of 0 to 11 basis points. The official directive, however, only states that “The Bank will purchase Japanese government bonds (JGBs) so that 10-year JGB yields will remain at around zero percent.”

We are of the opinion that the BoJ will take steps to widen the tight range of 0 to 11 basis points on 10-year government bonds associated with the ‘around zero’ directive. The objective of said widening being to allow Japanese banks to have more influence on 10-year rates and to steepen the curve ever so slightly to enable them to make their lending activities profitable.

 

 Qualcomm / NXP Semiconductor

The two-year saga of Qualcomm’s attempted acquisition of Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors came to an abrupt end after the deal failed to receive final approval from Chinese regulators ahead of the expiration of the companies’ agreement on Wednesday night. Had the transaction gone through, it would have been the semiconductor industry’s largest ever acquisition.

Unquestionably, the Qualcomm-NXP deal is collateral damage in the political game between Beijing and Washington and can be seen as retaliation for President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports.

After Congress, earlier this month, decided against re-imposing a seven-year ban on ZTE, the Chinese telecommunications equipment and systems company, from buying equipment in the US market — a move that would have effectively put the Chinese firm out of business, it was widely expected that China would have cleared the Qualcomm-NXP deal quid pro quo. By effectively ending the Qualcomm-NXP deal, however, the Chinese leadership is essentially adopting an extremely hawkish strategy toward the US.

We believe the Chinese move to end the Qualcomm-NXP deal is a significant escalation of trade-related tensions with the US, and see it is as weakening the position of dovish officials on both sides: in this case, Steve Mnuchin for the US and Liu He for the Chinese. This should only further complicate US-China trade related negotiations.

 

Trump-Juncker Meeting and the Prospect of Improved US-EU Trade Relations

In a joint announcement after meetings in Washington on Wednesday, President Donald Trump and the EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker declared a truce on trade-related tensions with the aim of eliminating all tariffs, trade barriers and subsidies related to non-auto industrial goods.

The rosiest outcome, from the perspective of the global economy, following this joint declaration is that President Trump seeks to settle the US trade-related tensions with the EU, Canada and Mexico, and instead focuses his energy on China – something Peter Navarro, Robert Lighthizer and other security and trade hawks in the administration have probably wanted all along.

If the rosy scenario does indeed materialise then the EU is likely to join in on US efforts to back against China’s efforts to move up the industrial value, discriminatory tariffs and abuse of intellectual property rights. The US-China trade-related tensions would escalate and Qualcomm’s failed acquisition of NXP would not be the last casualty in this spat. Every major US and Chinese company and asset would become fair game and everyone loses – China more than the US we suspect.

Earlier this year, President Trump announced broad based tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. Following the announcement, however, there were clear signals given by his administration that many of the US’s allies would be granted exemptions. Given that this not only did  not happen but that the tariffs were fully imposed on US allies, we assign a very low probability to the rosy scenario materialising.

Instead, we expect Mr Trump to keep upping the ante on trade, irrespective of the counterparty, right up until the mid-term elections. And only expect a coherent strategy on trade to materialise after the elections.

 

 Uranium: Extension of Cameco’s Facility Shutdowns

In November last year, Cameco Corporation, the world’s largest publicly traded uranium mining company, announced that it was temporarily suspending production at two of its northern Saskatchewan facilities – Key Lake and McArthur River – for a period of ten months. The decision was driven by the oversupply of uranium and low market prices that have persisted ever since Japan shut down its nuclear reactors following the radiation leaks at Tokyo Electric Power’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in 2011.

Taking Cameco’s lead, Kazatomprom – Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium mining company and the world’s largest natural uranium producer – announced in December last year that it would cut production by 20 per cent, representing 7.5 per cent of total global supply, over the next three years.

The impact of these two announcements was to send both uranium spot prices and share prices of listed uranium miners sharply higher. The euphoria did not last long, however. Spot prices gradually drifted lower, falling from just under US dollars 25 per pound at the start of the year to under US dollars 21 per pound by late April.  And the stock prices of many of the uranium miners fell below where they traded prior to Cameco’s announcement in November.

As spot prices fell, expectations that Cameco would extend the shutdown of its two Saskatchewan facilities started to grow. And Cameco has not disappointed, announcing on Wednesday after market, along with its quarterly results, that it would be suspending production at the two mines ‘indefinitely’ and does not plan to resume production at the site until the company can commit its ‘production under long-term contracts that provide an acceptable rate of return’.

The corollary of the extended suspension is that Cameco will be a buyer of up to 14 million pounds of uranium from the spot market (or otherwise) over the next 18 months to fulfil its commitments under on-going contracts.

Prior to their quarterly earnings call on Thursday morning, Cameco’s shares in pre-market trading were marked at 7 plus per cent below their closing price on Wednesday evening. Cameco shares closed up 3.4 per cent by end of trading on Thursday and spot uranium prices jumped 6.2 per cent to year-to-date highs at US dollars 25.65 per pound.

The malaise in the uranium sector may turn out to be much worse than Cameco’s management anticipating and the rally in the spot could well prove to be fleeting once again. If, however, uranium spot prices can push above US dollar 26.25 per pound, the highs recorded in 2017, they have significant room to run much higher.

For now we remain long select uranium miners as well as commodity pure play Uranium Participation Corporation $URPTF.

 

 

 

This post should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to purchase any particular security, strategy or investment product. References to specific securities and issuers are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations to purchase or sell such securities. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.

The Price of Growth

 

“To act wisely when the time for action comes, to wait patiently when it is time for repose, put man in accord with the tides. Ignorance of this law results in periods of unreasoning enthusiasm on the one hand, and depression on the other.”  – Helena Blavatsky, Russian esoteric philosopher, and author who co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875

 

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” – Stephen Hawking

 

“As soon as you stop wanting something, you get it.” – Andy Warhol

 

One of the universally accepted ideas in sport is that of home court advantage. The idea, after all, is not a difficult one to accept: Home teams have the crowd behind them, cheering them on, filling them with confidence; visiting teams, on the other hand, have to deal with the home crowd’s hostility, which saps energy. And the stats seemingly reinforce the idea. For example, over the course of the NBA’s history, home teams have won roughly 60 per cent of the games played in almost any given season.

The crowd is powerful.

When it comes to capital markets, the crowd has unquestionably been cheering on growth and mocking value. Leaving many a value investor confounded by the apparently unstoppable rise in the likes of Netflix, Amazon, and NVIDIA. While valuations may be stretched and fundamentals in some cases appear questionable, if we take a step back and consider the secular trend, the continued outperformance of technology becomes less puzzling.

Plotting total business sales of US corporates against the ratio of Nasdaq 100 Index to the S&P 500 Index, we find a strong correlation – 74.1% using monthly data – between the two data series. That is the outperformance of the technology focused Nasdaq 100 Index relative to the broader S&P 500 Index is positively correlated with US business sales.

Total US Business Sales versus Nasdaq 100 Index to S&P 500 Index Ratio Business SalesSources: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Bloomberg

Given the latency between data releases, this relationship does not provide a trading signal. The relationship, however, does appear to suggest that US business sales growth has largely been dependent upon the growth in sales at technology companies and the market accordingly has rewarded technology stocks.

Our goal here is not to espouse the merits of investing in technology or in growth. Instead, we want to focus on what we consider to be the most interesting part of the above chart – the period from 2003 through 2006. During this period US business sales grew strongly yet the ratio between the two indices flat lined i.e. the S&P 500’s price performance roughly matched that of the NASDAQ 100.[i]

Digging a little deeper, we plot the ratio of per share sales of the S&P 500 to per share sales of the NASDAQ 100 against the relative price performance of the NASDAQ 100 Index to the S&P 500 Index. Zooming in on the period between 2003 and 2007 we find that the comparable price performance of the two indices during this period coincided with the quarterly fluctuations in per share sales also being comparable. Similarly, during the years of significant relative outperformance by the NASDAQ 100 Index, we find that per shares sales of the index were increasing relative to the per share sales of the S&P 500 Index.

Nasdaq 100 Index T12M Sales to S&P 500 Index T12M Ratio (Quarterly Data)Per Share RevenueSource: Bloomberg

Next, we consider the relative performance of S&P 500 Growth Index to that of the S&P 500 Value Index. Comparing the performance of these two indices we find that while the Nasdaq 100 Index and S&P 500 Index achieved comparable performance during the period from 2003 through 2006, the value index significantly outperformed the growth index during this period. The value index peaked relative to the growth index in 2007.

 

Ratio of S&P 500 Growth Index to S&P 500 Value Index (Monthly Data)growth to valueSource: Bloomberg

At the time of the dotcom bubble the ratio of the growth index to the value index, on a monthly basis, peaked at 1.56. Today the ratio stands at 1.47.

The crowd may well be at the cusp of switching loyalties.

We look for clues in and around the period between 2003 and 2007 to help us determine whether the time for value is coming or not.

The cyclical low in the effective US Federal Funds Rate registered a cyclical low in 2003.

US Federal Funds Effective RateFed funds rateSource: Bloomberg

The Commodity Research Bureau All Commodities Spot Index registered a cyclical low in 2001 and MSCI Emerging Markets Index started its multi-year ascent in 2003.

CRB Spot All Commodities IndexCRBSource: Bloomberg

MSCI Emerging Markets IndexMSCISource: Bloomberg

The US dollar had its cyclical peak in 2002, the same year in which the Bush Administration imposed tariffs on imported steel.

In 2004, Congress approved a one-time tax holiday for US corporations repatriating overseas profits.

In 2005, George Bush signed a USD 286 billion transportation bill.

If we compare the events and market action that preceded and coincided with the relative outperformance of value during the years from 2003 to 2007 to that of today, we find many similarities across both policy-making and market action. With growth’s outperformance relative to value reaching levels last seen during the very same period, the signs are difficult to ignore. It may not be time to bail on growth as yet, but it certainly is not the time to have a 100 per cent allocation to it either.

 

Investment Perspective

 

Human nature is such that we desire that which is rare and take for granted that which is common. In the recent past growth has been elusive – and that which has been available has been heavily concentrated in the US and in technology. It is no wonder then that investors have rushed into US technology names without abandon.

Growth is no longer as elusive. We can find growth in Asia, Europe and other parts of the emerging world and across both old industries and new. With its abundance the price of growth should de-rate. Value, however, has become hard to find and it is this scarcity of value, we believe, that will bring about the inevitable shift in market leadership away from technology to other sectors.

Forewarned is forearmed.   

 

[i] The total return for the NASDAQ 100 Index for the period was 80.9% versus 74.05% for the S&P 500 Index.

 

Please don’t forget to share!

 

 

This post should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to purchase any particular security, strategy or investment product. References to specific securities and issuers are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations to purchase or sell such securities. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.