In April’s investing article:
The Reluctant March Rally. For the last two months, the market has marched slowly and inexorably upward. Investors jumped in not because they wanted to, but because they had to.
Analyzing the Market. I’ve tried different approaches to analyzing the market, and I’ve found many of them inadequate. Today, I look at at least four dimensions: macroeconomics, money flow, fundamentals and technicals.
First Quarter Earnings. All the factors that have been moving the market forward remain in place. First quarter earnings should be, on the whole, positive.
Intel Case Study. Still, it doesn’t mean that investors should jump in during earnings. For the average investor, waiting to see the reaction after earnings might be the best approach. A look at Intel as a case study of one way to handle earnings.
Stock Updates. Updates on Apple, Goldman Sachs and Citi.
Late last night, April 15, I had finished writing this article. I almost sent it, but I said, “I’ll do it in the morning.” Of course, I woke up this morning to find that the SEC was charging Goldman Sachs with fraud and that the market was in sell mode. Well, needless to say, that necessitated a few changes. But before we get into that, let’s go back over the recent market trends.
For the last month and a half, the market has crept upward, ever so slowly, ever so reluctantly. Looking day by day, you would barely notice. But when you add it up, it’s actually been quite extraordinary. As of market close on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, the S&P stood at 1,210.65, up almost 15% from the February 8 low of 1,056.74. The S&P hasn’t seen this much altitude since September 2008, just before the market jumped off the cliff in October 2008. Prior to this morning’s SEC action, the market looked poised to challenge significant resistance in the 1,220 range on the S&P, and calls for 1,300 were beginning to take hold. Take a look at the following weekly chart. You will see that we have indeed come a long way:
It’s no secret that there has been little conviction behind this rally. Trading volume has been low – a classic sign that buyers aren’t jumping in with both feet. If anything, buyers are entering the market because they have to or they’ll miss out. There’s an endless set of bull and bear opinions that you can listen to. We’ll go through some of these arguments, but at the end of the day, I find them both inconclusive and unsatisfying. As for what traders and investors actually do, the guideline seems to be, “the trend is your friend – until it’s not.” Meaning, they can’t tell you why the market is moving up, they just know that it is. And they’ll stay with the trend until it changes, whenever that is.
As I always say in this column, the prediction business is notoriously difficult. Still, it’s a worthwhile exercise, I think, because it’s tells us what to look for and gives us some parameters to guide us.
When I first started investing, I was of the Buffett school. He of course would say that he has no idea where the market’s going, he just looks at the intrinsic value of individual companies. For me, I’ve found that to be a woefully inadequate approach in practice. This may be anathema to Buffett fans, but I think it’s dangerous to interpret Buffett literally. I’m sure this will be a great debate for another day, but let me point out quickly a few problems with the “literal” Buffett approach: intrinsic value (and for that matter, valuation), can be infamously imprecise; the Buffett approach can lead to long periods (and I mean years) of negative returns; and if you didn’t have a conglomerate and lots of cash like Buffett does, you would have gotten whacked in 2008.
Nowadays, I look at four different factors when analyzing the markets: macroeconomics, money flow, fundamentals and technicals.
The technicals would tell you that the trend is upward. If you look at the chart above, you’ll see that the upward trendline since early February is unbroken (save for today’s pullback). Still, the technicals give you a very mixed picture. Volume has been low, which is a sign of weakness. And technicals also say that when the market retraces a certain percentage of the move from the October 2007 high to the March 2009 low, the market is likely to turn. Those percentages are 50% and 61.8%, derived from the Fibonacci sequence. On the chart above, the dashed lines mark these levels. A 50% retracement would be about 1,120 on the S&P; a 61.8% retracement would be 1,220. Many expected a reversal when the S&P approached 1,120, and as you can see, we crossed that in January, corrected and blew past that mark. Now we’re approaching the next resistance level at 1,220, and investors will hold their breath, wondering whether another correction is around the corner. The technicals would say that we are in the danger zone, which is part of the reason why investors are so skeptical about this rally.
As you can see, technicals are a guideline, but hardly definitive. Moreover, technical analysis can make you reactive, meaning that you have to wait and see what the market does before you can decide what you will do next.
Let’s take a look at the fundamentals. 2010 estimated earnings for the S&P are $78.12 per share, 2011 estimated earnings are $93.55 per share. Based on today’s S&P of 1,210.65, that gives you a 15.5x PE for 2010 and 12.9x for 2011. Most would say the market is fairly priced for 2010 and cheap for 2011 – if the companies in the S&P hit their earnings targets.
Before we get all giddy, there are a few caveats. First, you have to assume that the earnings estimates are accurate; firms could miss these targets. Second, there are actually several ways to calculate S&P earnings. If you watch financial news, you’ll see one commentator get on a say that the S&P is cheap. The very next day you could get another commentator on who will say the market is expensive. I suspect that’s because they’re calculating the number in different ways. In the calculation above, I’ve given you what I believe to be the most commonly cited number, which is estimated S&P operating earnings.
Third, we all know that the market can diverge substantially from fundamentals. So at the end of the day, fundamentals are a rough, long-term tool, not so precise in the short-term.
Right off the bat, let me point out that money flow is a supplemental consideration in my mind; kinda like looking at whether there’s enough gas in the car. It doesn’t change the driver’s intent, but tells us if the driver can get to where he wants to go.
Much has been said about the record funds placed into bond funds in recent quarters. That tells us there is money available to be placed in equities, if the conviction is there. Another money flow consideration is fact that many stayed out of the market in February, and still others were short the market in the first quarter. That means many managers are behind their benchmarks, and they have to jump in to catch part of this rally.
Finally, let’s look at the alternatives to for investors’ money. Bonds are popular, but questions about increasing interest rates abound. Interest rates remain low, forcing many managers to look to equities for return. Commodities seem to be moving in a channel, moving up to resistance points and falling back. Gold has had some movement, but gold tends to be an investment of last resort, when all other alternatives don’t look very good. With the market moving upward, the dollar rising (because of Europe) and inflation tame, investors would rather be in equities for the moment. Geographically, Europe is problematic, and more and more analysts agree that China is overheating. In sum, the prospects for US equities actually look fairly good in comparison to other alternatives.
Over the last few years, I’ve found the macro picture to be a critical component in market analysis. Macro analysis allows you to see the big trends in the market. The only problem is, macro analysis is very imprecise when it comes to timing. Often, the macro analyst is early, which is why many hedge funds have underperformed in the market during the last year. Still, these days, I can’t imagine looking at the market without taking macro factors into account.
Employment. To me, three major macro events occurred in March. The first is the March employment report that was released on April 2, 2010. In March, nonfarm payroll increased by 162,000 and the unemployment rate held at 9.7%. While almost 1/3 of the 162,000 jobs were due to the census, the simple fact that the number was positive was a major change in trend. And the fact that unemployment stayed at the same level rather than increasing was also significant. If these trends continue, then March could have been the turning point for employment.
Fed Interest Rate Policy. The second major event was the Fed continuing its policy of low rates for an “extended period” of time. In other words, the Fed saw no reason to raise rates anytime soon. And the market didn’t challenge the Fed. The 10-year Treasury approached 4% but didn’t significantly cross that level. By almost any standard, a 4% 10-year Treasury is low.
Corporate Financing. Third, the corporate financing market has revived. We don’t often look at this market, and you’ll rarely hear about it unless you dig through the Wall Street Journal. But this is a key component in the recovery. If you remember, last year, the problem was that the Fed had made money cheap, but the banks weren’t lending. That was because the banks thought that they might need it for themselves if their losses increased. The return of corporate financing means that banks have greater confidence, and the cheap money that the Fed engineered is finally getting to the companies, the original target of the Fed’s easy money policy.
In the first quarter, the volume of corporate debt issue was up significantly. Instead of going through the numbers, perhaps the better indicator is the number of mergers and acquisitions occurring. For the average investor, this is much easier to monitor. And if flip open the paper, you’ll notice that M&A is back in vogue. Among the deals you may have seen: Prudential’s $35.5 billion acquisition of AIG’s AIA Group; Novartis’ $28 billion purchase of 52.2% of Alcon; Kraft’s $18.2 billion purchase of Cadbury; and Simon Property’s $9.9 billion bid for General Growth.
While most of us don’t pay much attention to corporate financing, it’s important not to underestimate its importance. Many companies have debt that comes due over the next two years. The ability to replace that debt with new debt at reasonable rates is critical to the continuation of their business. Also, the mergers and acquisitions process allows company to re-organize and move toward new opportunities. In other words, corporate financing is a key part of the repair process.
All in all, stabilizing employment, continued low interest rates and the return of corporate finance bodes well for the economy. It stands to reason then, that first quarter earnings should be, on the whole, positive. All the factors that have been moving the factors forward continue to be in place.
In addition, the last couple months have also been marked by the absence of catalysts that would take down the market. Last month, I wrote about the headwinds to watch out for – China, Europe, inflation, interest rates and government regulation. Here’s where they stand today:
In general, the business factors – the macroeconomics, the money flow, the economic fundamentals – seem to favor a good earnings season. It’s the exogenous factors mentioned above, and particularly regulation from Washington, that could be the unknown boogeyman for the markets. Before we deal with this, let’s look at what an investor might do if the exogenous factors were not such an issue.
So far, we’ve had good reports from Intel, JP Morgan Chase and railroad operator CSX (I am long Intel and JP Morgan). These reports confirm an ongoing recovery in tech, financials and basic industrials. Still, sometimes there is nothing wrong with taking time to observe the market, assess and decide next steps. That’s basically what I’m doing.
The Reaction to Earnings. The first thing I’m looking for is to see how the market reacts after the reports. Let’s use Intel as an example. Take a look at the following chart:
Near the bottom of the chart, you’ll see a section marked “volume” and a series of ellipses. These mark the spike up in volume as Intel reports over the last four quarters, including this week.
Now let’s take a look at the stock reaction at the top of the chart. You’ll see that in July, after Intel reported second quarter earnings, the stock jumped up from about $16.80 and climbed to about $19.48 before fading back to the $19 level.
In October, the reaction was different. There had already been a run up in the weeks prior to earnings, so as earnings were released, the stock jumped up to $23.83, but immediately started selling off, falling to $18.50 before bouncing back. In January, you had a repeat of the October pattern. With earnings Intel jumped up to $21.48 and immediately started selling off, falling to $19.48 before bouncing back.
There are a lot of interesting lessons in this chart. The first is, unless you are a great trader, or unless you’re already in the stock a couple weeks before earnings, it probably doesn’t make sense for you to be buying the stock right at earnings. In July, if you bought the stock the day after earnings, your entry price would have been $18.05. The stock rose for the next two weeks to $19.48, but fell for two weeks after that. At that time, you could have bought the stock in the $18.50 range. In fact, you would have had several chances to buy the stock in the $18.50 - $19.00 range over the next nine months. That’s because the stock traded in a channel, marked by the white line at the top and the somewhat upward-sloping white line underneath. The lower end of the channel was about $18.50 - $19.00.
If you had bought right at earnings in October 2009 or January 2009, then you’d be unhappy because the stock sold off for the two weeks immediately after.
The Weeks After Earnings. In fact, in all three cases, unless you were already in the stock beforehand, the best entry point was a couple weeks after earnings, and that’s my second take-away. Unless you have a reason to be very certain, playing the stock right at earnings is very difficult, in my opinion. Of course, not every stock has this type of pattern. And patterns don’t repeat every quarter ad infinitum. But these patterns also aren’t unusual. And the market reaction in the weeks after earnings can be very informative.
Trading in a Channel. By the way, you’ll notice that Intel has tended to trade in a channel for the last two years. From April 2009 through July 2009, Intel traded in a channel in the $15.00 - $16.80 range. From July 2009 through April 2010, Intel traded in a channel from $18.00 to the $21.25 range. It’s not unreasonable to expect Intel to establish a new channel following this week’s earnings report. To understand why this might be happening, let’s take a look at the fundamentals behind the chart.
The Fundamental Context. I’ve often written in this column about tech as a major upcoming product cycle. Intel is in the process of recovering. But it’s also at the beginning of the computer refresh cycle, partially driven by the release of Windows 7 and the fact that corporations have delayed replacing their computers. Intel is also in the midst of two other cycles: a new phase of worldwide growth as emerging market customers buy their first computer; and the mobile/smartphone revolution. I actually think that Intel is at the beginning of a multi-year growth phase, because that’s a lot of positive product cycles.
So what does this have to do with Intel trading in a channel? Markets are imprecise. They stair step most of the time. When the stock price jumps to a new level, it might be ahead of the fundamental economics. So the stock trades in a channel as the fundamentals catch up. In other words, the stock “rests” while the fundamentals build. When earnings surprises show that the company’s fundamentals have moved beyond channel range, the stock jumps to a new level.
Now back to the specifics of Intel. The company’s stock has been resting in a channel for nine months. The question that we, as investors, have to answer is whether the company’s fundamentals have grown so much that the stock price should stabilize at a new level – i.e., a new channel. If the economy is growing, and the stock has been sitting in a channel for 9 months, it’s likely that Intel will settle at a new level.
The Downside Scenario. Before we get all giddy, we have to look at the downside as well. Anything that disrupts the thesis of a recovering economy can send Intel’s stock down. It’s not hard to figure out the possibilities: a crash in China, Eurozone contagion; a double dip in real estate, and so on – all the things we’ve talked about ad nauseum. Should any of these occur, the question will be, has the long-term trend changed? Probably not. In all likelihood it’ll be a break in the long-term trend. Still, the facts are, the stock can still go down. Not necessarily a problem, just something to be aware of and prepared for if it should happen.
In Conclusion. So back to the original question: what should we be doing now as investors? As you can tell with the Intel case, we should be looking at the specifics of stocks we are interested in – not only the trading pattern, but also the fundamental context. In addition, we have to be cognizant of the macroeconomic backdrop, the major issues that could change the course of any stock-specific assumptions we may have. It may sound like a lot of work, but we’ll be better off as investors if we do these things.
And now, to the topic of the day, the SEC charges against Goldman Sachs. As mentioned, the fear is less about Goldman Sachs and more about how far such accusations might go. If Goldman were to lose this case, then the remaining major banks would fall like dominoes. Needless to say, that would be disastrous for the sector.
The other major issue is that today’s SEC charges have made financial reform a highly likely probability. And the greater unkown is whether Washington might be even more aggressive than previously thought. Prior to today, the market’s assumption was that financial reform would not have sharp teeth. With today’s events, while it’s too early to say, but it might be necessary to throw out that assumption at some point. The timing of this announcement is not lost on anyone. I think you’d really have to be generous to assume that today’s SEC announcement had nothing to do with the upcoming financial reform.
As for the merits of the case, I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t give a significant opinion. But there are a few points to keep in mind:
What should the investor do? First, I would watch the reaction next week. None of this changes the fundamentals of the recovering economy. The question is whether the market will use this as an opportunity to sell off or correct or whether the market will consider this contained and continue to tread higher. We’ll have a much better idea next week.
Second, I would keep in mind that this will unfold over a period of time. There will be Goldman specific news, and then there will financial reform news. Both of these could affect the markets. So the story will go beyond next week.
Should there be a pullback, this could mean opportunity in sectors completely unrelated to Goldman and derivative real estate securities. So there might be opportunities to buy tech, basic industrials and commodities on a pullback.
If an investor wants to take a step up in risk, he or she can buy the stocks of financials that were not involved in derivative securities. For example, Visa, Mastercard and American Express all fell varying degrees today, and none of them are related to the securities in the Goldman case (My clients and I own Visa; my clients hold American Express).
And then there’s one more step up in risk – buying banks such as Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citi and Wells Fargo (I or my clients own all of these). So far, JP Morgan and Bank of America have reported declining loan loss reserves and seem to be indicating that the worst is past. This puts them on the path to recovery. One could argue that they’re unlikely to face any charges unless Goldman loses its case, and that’s likely to be sometime down the road. The market may also discount these stocks because of the regulatory overhang. But in the long term, this may very well prove a buying opportunity for these banks as well.
And finally, there is an argument for saying that this will be a buying opportunity in Goldman Sachs (I am long Goldman Sachs). This depends on your level of risk. Simply put, if you don’t want this level of risk, there are plenty of other places to go, as mentioned above. So, only for the risk-willing, or perhaps we should say, risk-prone.
Apple. In November 2009 I set a $240 price target for Apple. As of April 15, 2010, Apple is safely past that number, sitting at $249 or so. I thought it might sell off at bit after the iPad launch, but it didn’t. It held for a while and then started moving up. I have bought Apple for my clients.
I think Apple will very likely to hit $265 in 2010. I’ll give you the quick math. Estimated 2011 earnings are $13.87, times 16.5x multiple will give you $222. Add $43 in cash on the balance sheet and you get $265. This is actually on the lower end of most estimates. Many analysts are at $270-$300. The actual earnings target is less important than the thesis: Apple will lead a new generation of products and is in a multi-year growth cycle. I will occasionally trade in and out, but I plan to be an Apple owner for a long time.
Goldman Sachs. Last November, I placed a $200 target on Goldman Sachs in the next year, and I wrote an update last month, holding to my $2o0 target. The stock traded down because of seasonal Q4 weakness, as well as potential regulatory challenges in Washington. The stock fell to lows around $150 in late January, but has since rebounded and stands at $184 ahead of Q1 earnings. I expect Goldman to do well in Q1, but financial reform is obviously front and center. Had the SEC charges not appeared, I would have expected a rally into earnings. Now, there will be a cloud over the stock for a long time.
Goldman does remain one of the premier franchises in the world, and its business model remains sound. Investment banks often trade at a discount because of volatility, risk and the fact that it’s hard to understand what’s behind the numbers. But few realize how well managed the company is, and how well diversified Goldman is, even within the financial realm. Many thought that Goldman’s record trading profits in 2009 could never be repeated. That may be true, but it will still have significant profits from trading. Meanwhile, corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions will bring in revenue this quarter. The truth is, Goldman can make money in all sorts of financial environments.
The potential damage to Goldman from the SEC charges include hits to the reputation, loss of some discretionary business and possible fines and fees. In addition, financial reform could mean that the derivatives business would move to the exchanges and that would take down some of Goldman’s earning potential. Finally, there could be more other, new provisions in financial reform that we have not yet considered. So for the moment, there will be a lot of pressure on the stock. I am long Goldman Sachs.
Citi. Last month, I wrote that Citi would be an interesting speculative play. In the day or two it took me to write that article, Citi jumped from $3.56 to $3.96. On Thursday, Citi was at $4.81, but fell to $4.56 today, Friday.
Several things have changed in the past month for Citi, the major one being that the government has decided to pull out of Citi over time. Many thought the government would dump its shares on the market in one big sale that would be calamitous for the stock. When the government confirmed that it would sell slowly over time, investors found it safe to step back into the stock.
So the question is, what to do now? I favor Citi at this point. There are two main positive catalysts for the stock. First, someday the stock will cross $5.00. At that point, new buyers that don’t like stocks under $5.00 will step in. Also, the margin requirements are different for stocks under $5.00, so leveraged players may build a position. Second, at some point later this year, the government will announce that it’s out of Citi. Investors will be very, very happy at that point, and that should push the stock up.
As always, we have to be cognizant of the downside. The stock may struggle to cross $5.00, especially with financial reform in the works for several months. Also, any correction will hit Citi hard, and if a major double dip in real estate and / or consumer credit occurs, you have to step out of Citi. The bank can probably handle a small double dip, but probably not a big one. Finally, should Goldman lose its case against the SEC, Citi, JP Morgan and Bank of America could very well be next. Obviously, this stock is for someone who can deal with a murky situation.
Currently, book value for Citi is about $5.35 per share. Good banks trade at a premium to book value. That means if Citi even comes close to $5.35, expect the market to question the stock’s valuation in the short-term.
At this point, unless the fundamentals change significantly, I plan to hold Citi for a while.
Disclaimer. All material presented herein is believed to be accurate but we cannot attest to its accuracy. All trades, patterns, charts, systems, etc. discussed in this article are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be construed as specific advisory recommendations. All ideas and material presented are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher. All readers are urged to consult with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions.
No system or methodology has ever been developed that can guarantee profits or ensure freedom from losses. No representation or implication is being made that using the above approaches will generate profits or ensure freedom from losses. The examples used herein are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results. Each individual’s success depends on his or her background, dedication, desire and motivation.
The author may or may not have investments in the stocks or sectors mentioned.
As always, I encourage you to consult your own investment advisors before making any investments. I don’t claim to be right; I can only present you my logic, and I hope you will take the time to do your own homework and decide if you agree or disagree with the arguments presented here. Also, if you really feel like spending some more time on stocks, there’s more on my blog at http://mingloinvesting.blogspot.com [1].
Until the next time, sleep well.
Ming Lo is an actor, director and investor. He has an A.B. from Harvard College, Cum Laude, and an MBA and an MA Political Science from Stanford University. Prior to going into entertainment, Ming worked at Goldman, Sachs & Co. in New York and at McKinsey & Co. in Los Angeles.
Links:
[1] http://mingloinvesting.blogspot.com