Categories
Articles

Chrysler Debtholders v US Treasury: "Davidson" Opines

Todd,

The conflict in our society between the rightful owners of property thru legally executed contracts and those who do not understand the values behind legal obligations entered into freely and transferred freely to others has been basic to the development of the United States as a great economic power and is the basis of our democracy.

Jefferson after the Revolutionary War decried that soldiers had sold their pay vouchers to speculators seeking immediate cash when some years later Hamilton created the first Bank of the United States to issue debt to fund these obligations in full. Jefferson believed that the soldiers should get their pay in full even though they had sold the vouchers for immediate cash at substantial discounts to speculators before it was known if the vouchers would be made whole. Hamilton made good on the vouchers to whoever presented them as long as they could prove legal ownership. He paid them in full thus establishing the US as a sovereign and responsible nation that paid its obligations. More importantly, he affirmed the legal standing of contracts, freely entered and freely exchanged. Legal contracts cannot be abrogated by any other than the owners of those contracts as long as ownership has been legally obtained.

It is this rule of law that has made the US a great economic power and is vital to the US remaining so. The attempt to abrogate the contracts of the senior debtors of Chrysler by the US Treasury unfortunately misses this point. It is impossible for me to overstate how important a point this is to the underlying value of the not only the US economy but to the existence of the US as a political entity.

“Davidson”


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

"Davidson": PMI and The Market Direction

“Davidson” Submits:

The Institute for Supply Management survey was released Friday morning at 10AM with the Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) at 40.1% vs. 36.3% last month. Turns in this series has a good history of predicting future improvements in US GDP and stocks but for (as you can see below) 2001 when we experienced 9/11.

Based on the historical relationship of the PMI bottoming 2mos after the SP500 this supports the contention of a number of analysts that the “Internal Bottom” (defined as the number of SP500 stocks making what proved to be the low for the next 12mos) was made in October of 2008. Many bullish analysts said this at the time, but when the SP500 continued to hit new lows due to the large cap stock dominance in the index, the importance of “Internal Bottom” vs Index Bottom was lost in the cacophony of bearish forecasts on CNBC.

The relationship of the SP500 at ISM PMI bottoms is reproduced below the ISM Index vs. GDP chart.

My conversations with insightful individuals assure me that they consider this relationship important with the caveat that unforeseen events can trip up expectations. I recommend a balanced approach that is allocated for each investor’s risk tolerance.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Shiller Hosuing Index Picking Up More Doubters

Well, we must give credit where it is due here. “Davidson” was ahead of the curve on this one. Read his prior criticism of Shiller here and here

From the WSJ:

Now another economist, Thomas Lawler, says Prof. Shiller’s chart is “bogus.” Mr. Lawler says Mr. Shiller cobbled together data that are inconsistent and sometimes unreliable. Mr. Shiller defends his work and accuses Mr. Lawler of making “wild allegations.”

The clash is more than just a spat between two of America’s most prominent housing mavens. It could affect the debate about exactly where the U.S. is in its housing cycle. The squabble also illustrates the paucity of reliable information on house prices.

If they rely too heavily on house-price gauges, politicians may get a distorted view of the severity of the slump and support overly drastic measures, says Kenneth Rosen, a housing economist at the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Lawler says the Shiller chart also appears to understate the long-run rate of increase in home prices.

No one has found a precise way to measure changes in house prices. Because no two homes are exactly alike, changes in the price of one won’t necessarily be matched even by apparently similar homes nearby, much less those hundreds of miles away. Though some indexes track price changes in the same set of houses over time, those can be distorted by major improvements in some of the houses and deterioration in others. The publicly recorded transaction prices, used to create indexes, often are distorted by incentives given to buyers that aren’t tallied in the price.

It continues:

For 1890 to 1934, Mr. Shiller used data from a trio of economists led by Leo Grebler. Because he found no index for 1934 through 1953, Mr. Shiller wrote, “I had my research assistants fill that gap by tabulating prices in for-sale-by-owner ads in old newspapers,” covering just five cities. For 1953 through 1975, Mr. Shiller used an index compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS. An index from the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac covers the period through 1986, after which Mr. Shiller uses the S&P/Case-Shiller index he created with another economist, Karl Case.

“In other words,” Mr. Lawler wrote in a recent edition of his daily housing-market newsletter, “the long-term chart is based on a concatenation of different time series of home prices which use different methodologies, have different samples, measure different things, and all in all are, well, different.”

Mr. Lawler, a former Fannie Mae economist who now is an independent consultant in Leesburg, Va., says the BLS data used by Mr. Shiller was based on a “very small sample” and so isn’t reliable. Mr. Shiller’s chart shows that home prices from 1940 through 2000 rose at an annual real, or inflation-adjusted, rate of 0.7%. Data from the Census Bureau, however, puts the real rate at 2.3% for that period. Part of the difference may be due to improvements in the quality of homes, Mr. Lawler says, but he doubts that accounts for the whole gap.

Youtube plotting of housing prices on a roller coaster:

What to think?

I’m not sure how much confidence we can have in the Shiller data since the inputs it uses are not from the same series. It is sort of like trying to draw historical conclusions on stock prices by using different indexes for different periods. It doesn’t work.

Because of that, drawing conclusions on Shiller because of events that happened in the 1940’s based in his data I think is flawed and prone to massive error. Now it may also be part truth that Case-Shiller is a self fulfilling prophecy. If the index is treated as gospel, and it says home prices must fall “x”, then they may actually do so as potential buyers sit on the sidelines waiting to catch the low. The death of buyers then causes sellers to lower prices to move inventory.

If that is true then the problem is two fold. Incomplete data being used to make predictions and a publics blind acceptance of those outcome sin part causing them.

I think a healthy debate on the accuracy of the historical price points used in necessary.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Thursday’s Links

A book, Jeans, Davidson Speaks

The Forgotten Man

– Folks need clothes

– From an email from my friend “Davidson”
“I view the recent Conservative deregulation of the financial markets one of the most destructive attacks on our free market system and the concept of capitalism since Hoover’s gross loose monetary policy and price support activity of the 1920’s. This has opened the world to viewing Capitalism as a crass process of money gathering by the few to the detriment of the many, when in fact true Capitalism empowers individual initiative and productivity by insuring that each person has fair access to the tools necessary to fulfill his/her vision.

Now that the Conservatives have so maligned the concept of Capitalism by permitting the few to ‘game the system”, it has thrown open the doors to Democratic self interested wish lists carrying extraordinary power to throw this country into socialism and the destruction of individual rights. We will not know how this will end for several years, but it is my hope that the recent Tea Parties although a media event is truly a sign of individual unrest and as individuals we will take this period as an opportunity to reinstall the rules of fairness to our financial system and rethink where we are going with everything else.”


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

"Davidson" on Global Cooling

There is an investment thesis here. We just need the backround first.

“Davidson” submits:

You may wonder why I have sent you something about sunspots.

I do so because with my background, BA Geology, PhD Physical Organic Chemistry and MBA Finance, I am always looking for those threads of information that will help us make better decisions. Even something that looks off the beaten path can be eye opening such as this piece I found in Don Coxe’s recent commentary. Don’s full commentary is attached.

Don is a macro thinker and provides his views on the appropriate investments. I do not do this, but prefer to use the best investment managers I can locate and let the managers handle the details on individual security selection. My goal is to balance them in an allocated portfolio and then monitor and rebalance the portfolio vs. the asset class Return/Risk relationships.

I think Don is right to consider this information as part of the investment discussion even though its impact on our future is not clear. What may be an obvious play on energy could easily be translated into discoveries yet unknowable and result in new investment directions. Julian Simon discussed the power of human intellect in his “The Ultimate Resource 2” in solving seemingly insurmountable problems.

What is clear to me is that the current mania regarding global warming does not have science on its side and that any massive climate initiative should be approached with greater study. Having a scientific background leads me to look for cause and effect. I do this in investing and providing direction to clients. Often I find that stepping back a few more feet to view the wider picture proves illuminating. I think Coxe’s focus on sunspots and the known connection to global temperature cycles is well worth reading.

The source for all charts is the web site: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/index.html I added the chart for sunspot activity history from 1845-Present to provide you with perspective.

Don Coxe’s Section on Global Cooling:

Since we last published, the sunspots have been scarce and small, and the most respected measures of global climate show a strong cooling trend in this decade.

(The projections for future sunspot activity are from the two best-known sunspot research centres. For two years, they have been moving them forward as the sunspots disappoint the astronomers by failing to return.)

As clients know, we use our study of history to compare popular views about economics, finance, geopolitics with evidence of what has happened in previous eras.

As all scientific studies have shown, since the early 19th Century, the world has warmed up. Previously, the world went through roughly two centuries of serious global cooling. Whether by coincidence or not, sunspot activity during those centuries was extremely low.

Outside the Tropics, the world was cold. Example: Scotland suffered six straight crop failures during the 1690s because of late Springs and early frosts. Some historians believe this was the major reason why the Scots gave up their dreams of independence and joined England. There were skating parties on the Thames each winter. Polar ice caps expanded dramatically.

Then, in the early 19th Century, the sunspots returned. The pattern: ten years of sunspot activity, a year of rest, then a new cycle.

The last sunspot cycle ended on schedule in 2006. Also on schedule, there was minimal or no sunspot activity in 2007. Not to worry, said the global warmists: they’ll be back next year.

They didn’t come back in 2008. They haven’t returned so far this year. In retrospect, the record-breaking day-long super-spectacular series of 174 sunspot explosions on Bastille Day in July 2001 was the equivalent of Gandalf’s fi reworks display for Bilbo Baggins’s 111th birthday, which ended Bilbo’s ownership of the Ring. Astronomers still speak with awe of the sunspots that day. Satellite and radio communications across the world were devastated, and the Aurora Borealis was seen as far south as Texas. Almost immediately, sunspot activity began to dwindle, and then the spots completely disappeared in 2007. Periods of high sunspot activity didn’t reach the levels seen in the 1980s and 1990s. Minimums were lower. Then the sunspots virtually disappeared.

They haven’t come back, which means we are experiencing the longest sunspot drought in more than two centuries. As NASA notes, solar wind activity is at a fifty-year low. As other astronomers have noted, that decline in solar wind could be the factor that has dramatically reduced the depth of our atmosphere. Earth has had, for most of the time that we could measure such things, 400 miles of atmosphere between ground level and the Absolute Zero temperatures of outer space. We’re down to 250 miles.

As the science writer of the Telegraph put it, we are 150 miles closer to outer space than we were at the dawn of the Space Age.

As clients are well aware, we are infl uenced by the work of astronomers dating back to the Astronomer Royal, William Herschel, who two centuries ago demonstrated a correlation between the price of corn (wheat), and changes in sunspot activity. So we have watched with growing interest as astronomers report surprise at the failure of the sunspots to return.

The Victorian scientists would have swiftly said that the two cold winters we have been experiencing were inevitable, given the collapse in sunspot activity. There hasn’t been such sustained spotlessness on the sun for so long that it seems that the global warmists came to believe that those earlier Minimums were freakish occurrences.

Historians learn to take history as it is reported, and not to impose their own prejudices on it. We believe it highly likely that the temperate zones of the world—where most people and most grains come from—will experience notably cooler weather this year, which could imperil key crops.

Last year, according to some preliminary climatological surveys, the world temperature fell one degree Fahrenheit, the biggest one-drop for which we have authoritative records apart from the short-term cooling after Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991.

That temperature decline seems to have continued through winter, which has been severe in many regions. It is, as of now, the 10th coldest in Chicago’s history.

Snow has been reported as far south as Malibu. The Pacific Northwest—including Seattle, Vancouver and Victoria—has suffered the kind of snow and ice storms that more resemble New England than the balmy Pacific Coast. London had one of its biggest snowstorms in decades. Louisiana had a severe snowstorm in December that closed the major bridge across the Mississippi, backing up traffic for miles in either direction.

The University of Illinois Climate Research Centre, which researches ice caps and sea ice in the polar regions (“The Chryosphere”), has for years been reporting on the shrinkage of sea ice. When they took their annual year-end portraits of the poles, they were amazed: In just four months, the sea ice had expanded dramatically, and the total ice was now back to the average level of the past thirty years.

But, (you may say), I’ve read the reports on the Arctic ice cap shrinkage and I know that we face a crisis. One of the best-known reports is published by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, whose work was influential in the move to declare polar bears an endangered species. The Institute kept reporting this year that the ice was still disappearing, and its reports kept getting printed.

The Page 16 story came in mid-February when the Institute had to confess that “sensor problems” had given some misleading readings. In fact, they had managed to miss 193,000 square miles of sea ice, an area 18% larger than California.

Our take on all this is that the global warmists have such control over the universities, politics and media, that discussion of the possibility of a new period of global cooling is treated as something between hysteria and voodoo. Therefore, farmers and agricultural planners are making no provision for the possibility that this growing season could be far more challenging than last year. And, based on the historical evidence, cooling is cumulative: if the spots don’t return, next year is likely to be more problematic for farmers than this year.

’Twas ever thus. Our knowledge of sunspots dates back to Galileo and the records of sunspots have been kept since his time. He wasn’t permitted by the Elites of his time to say publicly that the earth revolved around the sun. The Vatican no longer claims that kind of authority, but the Scientific Left (if that is not an oxymoron) does.

One of Galileo’s contemporaries, Montaigne, expressed his exasperation about the way science was treated. “We parrot whatever opinions are commonly held, accepting them as truths, with all the paraphernalia of supporting arguments and proofs, as thought they were something firm and solid…Thus the world is pickled in stupidity and brimming over with lies.” That could describe today’s situation whenever the subject of global warming is discussed publicly.

This could be the ultimate Page 16 story.

On the other hand, it may be, as Henry Ford so vociferously maintained, that

“History is bunk.”

Full Report:
Donald Coxe BMO Basic Points 3 2009

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business & Law

Investment recommendations on page 41 of report…


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Does a New ETF Mean Housing Has Almost Bottomed?

Now, every reader here knows I am bearish on housing for 2009/2010. But, a new ETF out there has my contrarian indicator on high alert.

From the WSJ:

MacroShares’ Major Metro Housing product, brainchild of economist Robert Shiller, will offer investors a way of betting on rising house prices by buying “Up” shares, or expressing pessimism via “Down” shares. Unusually, these won’t be backed with the underlying physical housing assets.

Instead, MacroShares will be tied to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller Composite 10 Home Price index. When the Up and Down shares float, proceeds will be invested in U.S. government bills to ensure liquidity. If the index moves up, the trust behind the Down shares will shift a corresponding portion of its assets to the Up shares trust, raising the net asset value underlying the Up shares. The prices should follow.

This seesaw structure dictates there always being an equal number of Up and Down shares. So if, for example, there is high demand for new issues of Down stock, not an unlikely scenario in today’s climate, an equal amount of Up stock will have to be created and sold into the market. In this scenario, Down shares ought to trade at a premium to NAV because of high demand, while Up shares would tempt buyers with a discount.

First, readers also know how we at ValuePlays feel about Case-Shiller and its flawed methodology.

The ETF also seems at first blush to be a way to increase the relevance of the index the ETF’s creators have it tied to (they are the same people)

BUT, now that the average Joe has an easy way to bet against housing, are we looking at the “last fools in” on the downside? Please note, under no circumstances do I think there is any “rally” happening in housing. In all actuality just price stagnation would be stunningly good news. Past real estate busts have taken the better part of a decade to come out of and this was worse than any of them, there is no price rally in store.

Could the “RE ETF” to the downside be the “Lair Loans” from the bubble? Time will tell.

Now, when you couple that with this little piece of news also from the WSJ:

Jumbo mortgages became more expensive and harder to come by as the nation’s credit crisis deepened. That might be starting to change.

“Jumbo” refers to mortgages that are too large to be bought by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The “conforming loan limit” for those government-backed entities is $417,000 in many parts of the country, but goes up to $729,750 in high-cost areas of the continental United States.

Bank of America recently began trumpeting its jumbo program, offering 30-year fixed-rate jumbo mortgages with rates in the high-5% range. “We decided it was time to really go after that market,” says Vijay Lala, a product management executive for the bank.

Also:

The rates on 30-year fixed-rate jumbo mortgages averaged 6.5% for the week ended March 27 — the lowest since May 2007, according to HSH Associates, a publisher of consumer loan information. On Oct. 31, a recent high point, the average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo mortgage was 7.9%, according to HSH data.

GMAC also has been pricing its jumbos aggressively, says Paola A. Kielblock, national product specialist for Fairway Independent Mortgage, a mortgage broker and banker based in Madison, Wis.

She recently has seen rates in the high-5% to the low-6% range for 30-year fixed-rate jumbo mortgages, and the low-5% range for five-year adjustable-rate jumbos.

Bill Higgins, chief lending officer for ING Direct, says his firm has been offering jumbos in the 5% range for several months — even back when average rates were higher

I have claimed here for what seems an eternity that helping over-levered people 6 months behind on their mortgage was a waste of taxpayer money. Why? There is no economic impact to saving the home. John and Mary’s loan has reset and they are hopelessly underwater and cannot afford the loan. Forcing the bank to refi it only enables them to barely afford the loan. That is it. There is no discretionary income freed for other economic uses. Results from FDIC programs that show near 60% of these folks re-defaulting 6 months later would prove that point.

The argument is that saving the foreclosed homes saves property values. Bull, once the first home on the block (or near area) goes into foreclosure, homes 2 and up have no effect on pricing until #1 sells as that is now the low price. Since we know we cannot save every home because some people cannot afford their homes under any circumstances, saving the others in the area is wasting money and resources.

Fording them to foreclose and rent would actually free up more money for them to recycle back into the economy.

Jumbo loans. Today these are folks with high credit scores (>720), at least 20% equity in the home and higher incomes. Lowering their payment adds to their discretionary income that then gets recycled. I have argued that refinancing current loans at 4% to credit worthy borrowers would have more beneficial impact for the overall economy than just allowing someone to squat in a home.

Will this “save housing”? No. We could not build another house for a year and still have new home inventory unsold next April. Until that is fixed, prices cannot climb. It will though help the overall economy.

So, what does it all mean? The ETF? A piece of garbage. It will take at least a decade to recoup housing values in the hardest hit areas. Housing has collapsed and the easy money has been made for those who think further falls are in store. Not that is matters as the ETF isn’t even backed by actual home prices (unlike commodity ETF’s) but by the “feelings” of investors. Housing could rally or fall 20% but if investors do not rush to buy or sell shares in the ETF, the value of the investment remains flat. Contrarily, prices could remain flat but a rush of sellers could cause a long position to crater totally unrelated to housing prices. Nice…

Also, the folks at Macroshares have lousy timing with this type of investment:

When MacroShares first tried the structure tracking oil prices, the results were mixed. In its first outing, in 2007, the sudden rise in oil prices from $60 a barrel to triple digits caused it to automatically liquidate in the summer of 2008. In a seesaw structure, if prices move 100% either way, the net asset value of either the Up or Down shares must go to zero. This is by design, but some investors may be put off by the idea that returns are capped.

Final thoughts:

  •  Ignore the ETF
  •  Housing will not rally
  •  Giving current mortgage holders more discretionary income by lowering rates helps the economy
  •  Stable housing would be very good news…

Categories
Articles

"Davidson": Still Doubting Case-Shiller

“Davidson” takes Robert Shiller to task again. A month ago Davidson submitted this post showing Case Shiller methodology flawed.

Robert Shiller’s home pricing analysis has created panic in the hearts of every home owner, every bank lender, home builder, the managements at home furnishing suppliers, lumber companies, cement companies and etc. Lending businesses of every type and description are in shear panic of a highly uncertain and dire future. I believe that Shiller’s widely disseminated forecast needs perspective.

FIRST:

The March 2009 data for NAREIT was released this morning and the index history from 1987-Present is presented below. I use 1987 as a starting point because Congress changed the tax laws to make “tax shelters” uneconomical in 1986 and the tax regime has been the same since. The point I make here is that when we invest in REITs as an allocation, we do so using the common stock and not by buying the actual asset. The NAREIT Index has fallen 67% from Jan 2007 to Feb 2009. The current valuation is well below the historical pace and as long as the tax law does not change, I fully expect the pricing of REITs to return to the historical performance level.

An important factor (but not the only factor) in my thinking is William Isaccs’ Testimony to the House Financial Services Comm on March 12, 2009 which I have attached to this email and I encourage you to read carefully. In his testimony he indicates that Mark-to-Market is today’s worst problem and

“I was Chairman of the FDIC during the banking crisis of the 1980s. The problems in the U.S. financial system in the 1980s, despite what we are hearing from some government leaders and the media, were more serious than we are facing thus far today.”

I urge you to look at the 1990 decline in the NAREIT Index (Chart 1) which Isaccs calls worse than what we see today. The NAREIT Index tells me that the current market has overstated the current situation. (Click on the chart to expand the corners to more easily view the details) Remember when we buy REITs we are buying stocks that represent the market’s perception of the value of the underlying assets. Real estate has never in the history of the NAREIT Index fallen 67%

Chart 1(click to enlarge):

SECOND:

I have reproduced below Shiller’s Unadjusted for Inflation Housing Price Data 1890-2008(Chart 2) taken from Shiller’s http://www.irrationalexuberance.com/ and the comparison of the Shiller late1980’s-early 1990’s (Chart 3) real estate decline vs. the current real estate decline as published at http://paper-money.blogspot.com/

Chart 2: Shiller’s Unadjusted Housing Price Data 1890-2008(click to enlarge)

Chart 3: (click to enlarge)

My first observation is that Robert Shiller makes a broad forecast using the complete period from 1890-2008. When I view his data it is apparent that crucial events in 1933 enabled the Federal Reserve to not only provide economic stabilization during times of distress but to set national baking regulation. My interpretation is that by lessening the downturns in our economy caused by a pre-1933 unregulated financial industry, the Federal Reserve lessened the capital destruction and the US economy and housing stock grew out of post-1933 economic declines from serially higher lows. The effect in home valuations and the gradual willingness to use borrowed funds has provided fulfillment to many American dreams. I have drawn valuation channels for these two very different economic periods and added rates of return that came from this analysis in the chart below. Robert Shiller treats the 1890-2008 price series as having a continuous economic environment.

I had puzzled over Shiller’s forecasts for some time as they appeared so dire, yet the history in the NAREIT above and the Nominal Housing Prices below did not fit the oft repeated forecasts.

The Shiller House Pricing Data is Inflation Adjusted, BUT we think in terms of the Nominal Price and banks lend against the Nominal Price.

Shiller’s forecast is an inflation adjusted forecast, but the media does not present it this way. We think in Nominal Prices, the price we see every day. When Shiller compares price declines during the last home price decline period to those of the current period as is presented in Chart 3 from paper-money.blogspot, these are inflation adjusted prices and not those that we actually experienced in the decline of the late 1980’s-early 1990’s. We experienced a 3% Nominal Price decline from 1990 to 1991.(See the Shiller Unadj Housing Price Data 1987-1997 Chart 4 below) Importantly, banks lend against the Nominal Price not the Inflation Adjusted Price.

Chart 4 (click to enlarge):

Our national panic over falling prices and owners being underwater vs. Inflation Adjusted Cost Basis is not how we or the banks think. It seems that we have suddenly come to accept a pricing methodology that we have never before considered valid.

In my view the current panic heavily promoted by the media needs to step back a bit and not take Robert Shiller’s price decline forecast as a Nominal Price decline forecast which is what I think we are doing.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

NY Times 2002 Piece on Lampert

This is interesting. Thanks to “Davidson” for emailing the article. Sorry but do not have original link to the article on Sears Holdings (SHLD) Chairman Eddie Lampert.

Personal Business; Big Returns, Minus the Pleasantries

By GERALDINE FABRIKANT

Published: February 17, 2002

HE is known as secretive, controlling and so impatient for success and obsessed with work that some who know him say he takes little note of people unless he needs them.

Warm and fuzzy Edward S. Lampert is not. But that has not seemed to matter. Mr. Lampert, a 39-year-old money manager, has scored an extraordinary 14-year record of value investing, with an average annual return of 24.5 percent. The 2001 performance of the ESL Partnerships, a group of hedge funds he controls, was particularly stunning: it soared 66 percent as the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index sank 13 percent. Even after the typically high hedge fund fees, his investors had a 53 percent return.

He has attracted a host of superwealthy clients over the last decade, including David Geffen, the media mogul; Thomas J. Tisch, a son of Laurence Tisch, the co-chairman of the Loews Corporation; Michael S. Dell of Dell Computer; and Ziff Brothers Investments, the principals of which are the sons of the publisher William B. Ziff Jr.

”Eddie is probably the best single money manager of his generation, but he has never thought that a great bedside manner in investing was the No. 1 thing,” said Richard Rainwater, the Texas financier. In fact, Mr. Rainwater, one of his first big backers, had his own run-in with Mr. Lampert years ago.

Mr. Lampert is dismissive of the criticism. ”Our focus has been first and foremost on earning returns for our partners,” he said.

His dazzling returns have come from a high-wire act of intensely heavy concentration in a handful of companies and of betting for the longer term. Currently, 85 percent of the $5 billion that ESL invests is in just eight companies. He has avoided Internet stocks and other fads over the years and has instead sought holdings in more mundane companies like AutoZone, a car parts retailer, and the Deluxe Corporation, a check-printing and electronic payment services concern. During the 1990’s, his fund made killings in American Express and I.B.M.

Because of such heavy concentration, poor performance of a single stock can drag down total returns, and selling out of such illiquid positions can be tough. But, he said, ”If you have just 10 names and one blows up, you have less risk than if you are highly leveraged and you don’t really understand the other companies well.”

Clearly, he has made it work. Since he started his fund business in 1988, he has had returns there that are nearly double the 13 percent of the S.& P. 500, according to company documents obtained by The New York Times.

”There are very few investors who have done that over time,” said Jeffrey Tarrant, the founder and an advisory board member of Altvest, which tracks hedge funds.

Even last year, when short-selling funds did well in a falling market, his returns came from plain-vanilla, long-term investing, though his hedge fund can go short, or bet on market declines. In 2001, ESL trounced the CSFB Tremont hedge fund long/short equity index, which fell 3.65 percent.

IN the tightknit world of money managers to the superrich, Mr. Lampert is watched closely but is hard to follow. Until he has to file public documents after acquiring more than 5 percent of a company, he is reluctant to share information with even some of his highest-profile investors, like Mr. Tisch and Mr. Geffen.

That is noteworthy, given that both are longtime investors, that Mr. Tisch is a friend as well, and that Mr. Geffen’s $200 million investment in 1992 helped put Mr. Lampert on the money management map.

In an interview in his low-key suite of offices in Greenwich, Conn., where he works with a staff of 15, Mr. Lampert said: ”I tell people in advance what our practices are. If they don’t like those practices, they have a choice not to invest.” He is extremely proud of — some say arrogant about — his track record, which he likens to that of the basketball superstar Michael Jordan. ”People keep criticizing him,” Mr. Lampert said, ”but he keeps winning.”

For the privilege of riding along, ESL investors are asked to put up at least $10 million. They must pay a 1 percent management fee and 20 percent of profits — standard requirements for hedge funds, those investment vehicles for institutions and the superwealthy. They must also agree to lock up their money for at least five years — a highly unusual requirement. Most hedge funds allow annual withdrawals.

The lockup provision has discouraged several foundations from putting money into ESL, according to one hedge fund manager who serves on some foundation boards. But it has not deterred a host of sophisticated investors. ”You know your money is tucked in safe every night,” Mr. Tisch said. ”You know it isn’t chasing some silliness. He’s investing with solid, proven principles.”

The five-year lockup ”gives us time to build and to exit a position without having to worry about investors forcing liquidations,” Mr. Lampert said. ESL has kept its most profitable holdings an average of four years, qualifying them as long-term gains for tax purposes.

Mr. Lampert began requiring the lockup after his only down year: in 1990, investors lost 16 percent. Mr. Lampert had bought stock in the middle of the year, though by December the market had plunged. ”It was terrible,” he recalled. But for investors who stayed, the fund soared 56 percent in 1991. That underscored for him the value of having capital locked up through weak periods.

AutoZone was the big payoff last year. It also reflects another of his tactics — an increasingly active role in companies in which he invests. Attracted by AutoZone’s cash flows, brand name and low profile on Wall Street, he began acquiring shares in 1997. For two years, the stock barely budged, but Mr. Lampert kept buying. In mid-1999, James Hedges IV, a hedge fund consultant and a mutual friend of Mr. Lampert and AutoZone’s founder, Joseph Hyde III, arranged for them to meet.

Mr. Hyde recalls vividly the lunch at his 600-acre ranch, WildCat, in Aspen, Colo. ”He had visited our stores, talked to management up and down the line and knew everything — far more than most money managers,” Mr. Hyde recalled. ”Most investors talk to management and that’s it. But he had a fanatical awareness of the company.”

(The scrutiny continues: A report sent to shareholders in 2001 states that ESL employees had visited or spoken with people at 690 of the more than 3,000 AutoZone stores.)

In 1999, Mr. Lampert, who then owned about 15 percent of AutoZone stock, also gained a seat on the board. He believes that board membership allows him to participate in discussions of important decisions.

A year later, the board put in a poison-pill provision that would have been set off had he increased his stake. He fought it, and the board backed down. The poison pill was rescinded and the chief executive, John C. Adams, resigned. Mr. Lampert led the committee that in early 2001 brought in Steve Odland, an executive at Ahold USA, the subsidiary of the Dutch company. Under Mr. Odland, AutoZone increased its gross margins by two percentage points in the most recent quarter, ended Nov. 30.

For most of last year, ESL had 30 million shares of AutoZone, or 27.8 percent of the company. In that time, the stock more than doubled in value.

THERE have been disappointments, too. For example, Mr. Lampert holds 12 percent of Payless ShoeSource, the shoe retailer. Its stock fell from $70.75 a share at the end of 2000 to $56.15 at the end of 2001, dragging down Mr. Lampert’s investment by 20.6 percent, to $153 million. The shares closed at $56.94 on Friday.

A small investment in the ANC Rental Corporation, the parent of Alamo Rent-a-Car and National Car Rental, ended badly when the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November.
The son of a lawyer and a homemaker, Mr. Lampert grew up in Roslyn, N.Y., on Long Island. The family lived in middle-class comfort until he was 14, when his father died of a heart attack. Mr. Lampert says the death put financial pressure on the family and is partly responsible for his relentless drive for financial security.

He became interested in investing during visits to his grandmother’s home in Miami, where they would study the stock market together. ”She owned a handful of stocks,” he recalled. ”I.B.M. and AT&T. She always wanted a good dividend. In her simplicity, she was profound.”

Mr. Lampert said his grandmother, who did not have much money, invested as a hobby. ”I thought she was good,” he said, ”but I never calculated her returns.”

At Yale, he majored in economics, and, contrary to his mother’s wishes, he decided to skip law school.

Early on, he showed great skill at cultivating powerful people who could help him move ahead in the elite world of finance. One story, in particular, has long made the rounds. While at Yale, he managed to snare a summer job at Goldman Sachs, and pursued an acquaintance with Robert E. Rubin, then head of risk arbitrage there. One day, Mr. Lampert offered to help carry his heavy briefcases to a rental car, gaining the ear of his quarry. He ultimately landed a job in the risk arbitrage department.

In a recent phone interview, Mr. Rubin, who later became Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and is now chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup, said he did not remember the incident but did not dispute it. He said he did recall thinking: ”Eddie will go out on his own one day. He won’t stay at Goldman Sachs.”

Though some associates regarded such efforts by Mr. Lampert to parlay connections into cash as distasteful, Mr. Lampert counters: ”I want to be with people who can challenge me to be better.”

It was while he was at Goldman that Mr. Lampert met Mr. Rainwater, famous in the investment world for managing the Bass brothers’ fortune through the early 1980’s. He and Mr. Rainwater were introduced by mutual friends on Nantucket in 1987, and Mr. Lampert made sure to stay in touch.

In 1988, he left Goldman to work with Mr. Rainwater. His drive was evident. Over the summer, again on Nantucket, Mr. Lampert almost never left Mr. Rainwater’s house, Mr. Rainwater recalled. ”He slept in the room, ate in the room, never went to the beach, never saw the beach,” Mr. Rainwater said. ”I don’t think he ever went out to dinner with us.”

Mr. Rainwater backed his protégé by putting up the bulk of the $28 million in Mr. Lampert’s first fund, which the young investor ran from Mr. Rainwater’s Fort Worth office. Mr. Lampert was focusing on risk arbitrage and value investing. But after just a year, the strong-willed men clashed when Mr. Lampert wanted more control over what types of investments he could make. At the time, associates say, the parting was extremely acrimonious, and Mr. Rainwater withdrew his money.

In 1992, after a few more years of working in Texas, Mr. Lampert moved to Greenwich, at the urging of Mr. Geffen, whom he had met through Mr. Rainwater. ”David told me I needed to get a life,” he recalled.

But Mr. Lampert’s obsessions went with him. According to several people who have worked with him, he still works nonstop and makes all the decisions himself. One former employee said, ”Even if you presented a research report and he could not punch holes in it, he would not buy it.”

Mr. Lampert concedes the point. ”Most of the ideas come from me,” he said. ”I am the only person who has the ability to allocate capital.”

He also exercises very tight control over compensation, a former employee said. ”You were expected to work hard to make him rich,” he said. ”Bonuses were discretionary and Eddie was pretty moody, so you never knew how you would come out.”

Mr. Lampert seems to have come out fine. Though he declined to discuss his personal finances, several people who know him say he is worth $700 million or more. He has a home in Aspen and a sprawling estate in Greenwich, where he and his wife, Kinga Lampert, were married last summer.

Several hedge fund managers say the compensation arrangements for members of his staff are a bit controlling, but Mr. Lampert says they are more than fair. While employees are not pressured to invest in the fund, ”they were just prohibited from investing anywhere else,” he said. That, he said, could work to their interest.

Employees are not the only ones who can be put off by his style. One veteran money manager described a social lunch several years ago: ”He picked my brain on stocks, but offered nothing. The next time, I decided to talk about fishing until he offered something. So we never got past fishing.”

EVEN had Mr. Lampert been forthcoming, his investment strategy might have sounded deceptively simple: sticking to the basics. Because he tends to take large positions, each stock decision is crucial.

He studied the Internet but avoided the sector despite its wild run-up: ”Most businesses, as they grow, have a model where they make more money as they get more customers. Internet companies seemed to lose more money as that happened.”

He also does not like what he calls ”the vision thing.” ”Average investors like themes,” he said. ”A lot of times you pay a high price for the vision, and you can lose 80 percent of your money.”

Mr. Lampert also shies away from capital-intensive businesses. He says he believes that Intel, the computer chip maker, ”is a terrific business, but for it to exist, it has to keep feeding more and more money in, and it needs to be right when it does it.”

”If it is wrong,” he added, ”that will be a huge problem.”

He doesn’t like convoluted financial statements. Even when Enron was soaring, Mr. Lampert said, he was not interested. ”Complex financials don’t necessarily mean there is something wrong,” he said. ”But if you don’t have a clue, why invest?”

Grandma would have been proud.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long SHLD

Categories
Articles

Wicksell Rate Says Buy..

“Davidson” submits……

Wall St. Newsletters

It is useful for value investors to see how this may be applied when investing in common stock as it reveals that the markets do indeed arbitrage with the principle of Relative Returns. For the many who have attempted the use of simple relationships, i.e. P/BV, Market Cap/GDP, P/E this will appear overly complicated, but I do not apologize. I only observe that the world of capital requires adjustments to valuation so that a competitive return can be had.

The basic formula is the long term Real GDP + adjustment for inflation = Wicksell Rate(proposed by Knut Wicksell in 1898).

In reality this comes down to using the Dallas Fed 12mo trimmed mean PCE as the measure of core inflation and for US investors the Real US GDP long term trend which today sits at 3.16% and over the next 10yrs will fall to 3.15% based on 80yrs of history. Based on the Feb 2009 Dallas Fed PCE release of 2.2%, the Wicksell Rate at the moment is ~5.4%. This is the moving Wicksell Rate(Capital Return Benchmark) that essentially rises and falls with core inflation while Real US GDP does not vary very much for 5yr forecasting purposes. This approach is not for next quarter’s GDP or even next year’s GDP as we all know that no one has ever forecasted these levels with precision. However, IF WE KNOW WHEN THE MARKET IS OVER VALUED OR UNDERVALUED VS. THE WICKSELL RATE, WE CAN KNOW WHEN TO COMMIT FUNDS AND WHEN TO REMOVE FUNDS BASED ON RELATIVE RATE OF RETURN.

In using this approach one needs to be cognizant that psychology plays a significant role in market valuations for periods as long as several years. I call attention to the sell signal given when the SP500 return fell below that of the Wicksell Rate in 1997 and did not provide a buy signal till August of 2002. In general this valuation approach would have sold during periods of excess valuation and bought only after corrections had mostly run their course. The fact that it resulted in a buy signal just prior to the Fall 2008 collapse demonstrates that when market valuation rules change so does the ability of the market players to know where the values are in the market place. They just sell out and wait for the dust to settle. This was the stark effect of imposing an artificial price-based Mark-to-Market valuation methodology to securities known to be of much higher quality than those prices reflected.

The other half of the process, i.e. developing a reliable forward return for the SP500, requires the knowledge that 1) SP500 ROE has been surprisingly steady at ~14%, 2) SP500 BV has had surprisingly growth of ~6% since 1978 and the SP500 represents ~90%+ of US market capitalization. Together, these facts let us assume that the next few years will run along the same trend. This method is to divide the 2yr forward SP500 Book Value into the current SP500 Index Price and multiply this by the ROE to get a measure of how much of this ROE the investor receives at the current SP500 Price level. The 2yr number is based on the rational that Value investors look at least 2yrs into the future.(Value investors are not traders) The calculation looks like this:

(SP500 Price)*(SP500 ROE Trend of 14.2%)/(2yr Forward SP500 Book Value) = 2yr Forward Return at the Current SP500 Price Level

This proves that the market does have a rational Relative Return process at work. It also proves just as simply that regulations and psychology can tamper with the relationship over shorter periods such as the one we find ourselves in today.

The current market is an extraordinary buying opportunity!!

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Is Case-Shiller Flawed??

“Davidson” makes the case that it is indeed flawed analysis….

Wall St. Newsletters

Robert Shiller has made quite an impact with his various appearances in the media and his active financial consulting business heavily promoting his negative market views. I downloaded his spreadsheets with the goal of understanding his views better, but was surprised to discover serious errors in his approach. I start with his analysis of the housing data and then follow with his view of the SP500.

This is an analysis of Robert Shiller’s data downloaded from his site with out modification. His chart is inflation adjusted Housing Prices in arithmetic format. My chart below is of his Nominal Housing Price Index in semi-log format.

Price/time series of this type require semi-log analysis and clearly reveal that conditions over the series are non-uniform. The point to make with this comparison is that Prof. Shiller draws conclusions regarding housing trends from 1890-Present (Chart 1) treating the period as if the conditions affecting housing prices had been uniform. My chart below Chart 2) provides a clear indication that this is an erroneous supposition as the pre-1933 environment greatly differed from the post-1933 environment. Namely, the Banking Act of 1933 and the Glass-Steagall Act provided improved financial stability which led to a ~300% growth rate in the housing index post-1933 vs. pre-1933. No analytical method can make a valid combination of pre-1933 data and post-1933 data and hope to come to conclusions with any validity.

Prof. Shiller’s housing forecasts are simply meaningless based on the data he presents.

Chart 1: Shiller’s Inflation Adjusted Housing Index Chart arithmetic scale

Chart 2: “Davidson’s Chart of Shiller’s Nominal Housing Index in semi-log format.

Next I turned to Prof. Shiller’s analysis of the Inflation Adjusted SP500 Index and again compared his chart (Chart 3)analysis vs. the proper semi-log format unadjusted SP500 Index(Chart 4). Prof. Shiller draws conclusions and makes forecasts based on the SP500 Inflation Adjusted chart below. He assumes that uniform conditions applied throughout the period. This is shown to be a very simplistic and incorrect assumption by observation of my semi-log non-inflation adjusted plot of the SP500 below. Pre-1933 and post-1933 environments are readily observed. Again one cannot combine the pre-1933 period with the post-1933 period as he has and make any intelligible analysis much less a valid forecast.

Note that the SP500 grew ~400% faster post-1933 when compared to the pre-1933 pace.

The greatest difference in both instances of Shiller’s analyses is that the laws enacted in 1933 to protect the US financial system, greatly reduced the rate of bank failure post-1933 and the subsequent capital destruction. Prof. Shiller has failed to recognize this in his assumptions that conditions remained uniform throughout the period of his analyses. He needs to reassess his approach.

Chart 3: Shiller’s Inflation Adjusted SP500 Index

Chart 4: “Davidson’s SP500 Index unadj. From Shiller’s Data in semi-log format.

I believe Prof. Shiller’s work by this simple analysis is revealed to be considerably flawed.

Humbly submitted,

“Davidson”

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Historical Look at S&P Book Value

According to everything I am finding, we are way oversold long term. Now, that does not mean run out and blindly get yourself fully invested. We can also stay this was for a very long time. It does mean for the patient investor the are bargains out there..big ones…

Wall St. Newsletters

Take a look at this chart (click chart for larger version):

“Davidson” submits:
The value to using this is to know that the average ROE for the SP500 is ~14% with about 57% of earnings paid out in Dividends and ~43% being reinvested. This provides for a Book Value growth rate of ~6% which has been remarkably consistent and in line with the SP500 earning’s chart showing the remarkable consistency of our economy. Knowledge of this consistency becomes a tool for the value player.

What you do is to convert the P/BV into a ROE to the investor. On 3/6/2009 the P/BV was 1.2 which converts to 14%/1.2 = ~11.7% return for investors who buy the SP500. Then, what must be done is compare this to the Wicksell Rate which is 5.4% today and falling.

“Wicksell Rate” explained here

You can look at this discrepancy as Buffett would and simply say that you are buying an 11.7% yield in a long term 5%-7% SP500 return range. The current SP500 provides sizable upside if inflation remains low. The lower the inflation the higher the SP500 valuation will be in the future during normal times.

For example:

If inflation is 1.8% the Wicksell Rate will be ~5% and the SP500 will reach about 20 P/E. If inflation drops to 1% then the Wicksell Rate becomes ~4.2% and the SP500 could reach ~25 P/E. You can also have inflation move in the opposite direction and should it move to 3% the Wicksell Rate will be ~ 6.2% and SP500 would price near ~16 P/E.

What permits an investor to enter the market during times of distress such as these is the knowledge of economic history and the trust that the growth of our economy is inherent within the free nature of our society and will continue in the future.

This is one instance in which knowledgeable investors expect history to repeat itself.


Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Sentiment and Investing in The Depression & Today

An interesting point on how investor sentiment has always overshot to the downside.

Wall St. Newsletters

“Davidson” comments on the following chart”

Here is the SP500 from Dec ’27 to Dec ’49. The P/E and EPS are included. The change in psychology from Sept 1929 to June 1931 was much greater than the $1.60 per share to ~$0.50 per share earnings drop. Psychology has always had an enormous effect on market prices and true Value Investors utilize this knowledge to their advantage. Most available data bases do not go back beyond the 1960’s as the data reliability is not guaranteed.

(This chart is constructed from data extracted from older SP500 sources and likely does not conform to modern accounting standards. The relative perspective is useful just the same.)

From 1929 to 1931, the S&P Earnings dropped 37% yet the value of the S&P dropped 85%. Simply said this means investors were over twice as pessimistic about US business then what the reality of them actually was.

Another interesting point is the 1931-36 recovery. Note the PE skyrocket up ahead of the market. It is clear investor sentiment turned positive BEFORE the actual earnings of the S&P did. Notice from the chart earnings stays flat until essentially 1934 while the market has a massive rally. So, great you say, what does it all mean?

It means the market bottoms before earnings do and then rallies before they rebound due to sentiment. So, then, where are we now with sentiment? I am using modern numbers because to the best of my knowledge there are no “sentiment” readings from the 1930’s other than market results (if anyone knows that there are, please let educate me).

Link to chart data

We are now more negative than the last two recessions (with reason). Those low readings eventually gave way to the 1990’s and 2002-2008 bull markets.

We can go back to a post I did last week regarding cash vs. the S&P. It shows just how pessimistic people are. Money sitting in the bank right now in Treasuries in earning essentially nothing. This, for the majority of people is preferable to the “expected” losses they assume in the market. It also is tremendous fuel for the fire once that sentiment changes and, yes it will. The current situation is not even as bad as 1980-81 much less 1929-31. The US economy and the market both came back from those periods and will again.

Now, the trillion dollar question is “when?” Again, I do not make “bottom” calls but I feel there is a large swath of the market trading at “eventual destruction” valuations. I also know people are of the mindset the world, while not quite ending is racing towards depression. With the ammunition sitting there to buy equities present, when the depression does not occur people will tired rather rapidly of earning nothing on cash in the bank or in US Treasuries and will want a higher return in the market from equities again.

When they do, the floodgates will open..

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Watching Mr. Copper

This goes to recent statement from other industrial producers…

Wall St. Newsletters

“Davidson submits”

Keep an eye on “Dr.Copper”.

Dennis Gartman, Doug Kass and other traders focus on this for fundamental changes in the direction of the markets. The cost of production is variously pegged between $1.50-$2.00lb with $1.75lb often mentioned. Copper being fundamental to the transfer of electricity for buildings, machinery, transportation and construction is often used to signal changes in economic activity and has the moniker “Dr. Copper”.

Copper’s trend as reflected in Freeport McMoran (FCX) and the commodity appears to have begun a new uptrend. This bears watching.


My Thoughts (not Davidson’s):

“Inventory destocking” has been a theme lately. The trend (running inventories to very low levels) has destroyed earnings for chemical producers like Dow Chemical (DOW), BASF (BASF) and caused commodity prices to plummet (people who are not producing things aren’t buying the ingredients).

Data like this also suggests when the global economy turns (there is evidence the free fall is abating) with inventory levels next to zero, we could see an explosion of orders and manufacturing activity. China has a stimulus package it enacted that is building everything under the sun and the US one, while diminutive in statue (and eventual effectiveness) will increase activity here somewhat.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long Dow, none

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

The "Wicksell Rate" Explained

I had several folks wonder what this was when it was first discussed here

“Davidson” submits:

Wall St. Newsletters

One of the most difficult tasks one can have is to find a proper method of valuing the marketplace as so many competing methods are offered. I have looked to basics and once I learned of Knut Wicksell, much became clear.

My view which has developed over the years is that capital returns follow the Wicksell Rate which was first authored in 1898 by Knut Wicksell. This rate is the US Real GDP Trend + the trimmed core PCE (core inflation rate as run by the Dallas Fed). Written as the formula:


Real US GDP(long term trend) + 12mo trimmed mean PCE(Personal Consumption Expenditure per Dallas Fed) = Wicksell Rate

All long term returns arbitrage about this rate but with considerable deviation due to market psychology (Chart Below) and earnings swings. Long term this should be about 5% if inflation is kept between 1.5%-2% and equates to a 20 P/E on the SP500. The emergence of inflation can substantially depress P/E’s regardless of the strength or breadth of earnings and represents the greatest risk to undiversified portfolios. The Dallas Fed has information on Wicksell.

Coming to terms with periods of economic distress and the associated market declines can in my view be greatly fortified by looking at some of our economic and market history.

US Real GDP (Chart Below) shows just how resilient the US economic system has been over nearly 80yrs. There have been seemingly catastrophic events, i.e. Herbert Hoover followed by FDR, WWII, Kennedy’s assassination, rampant inflation, Richard Nixon followed by Jimmy Carter, “Death of Equities”-1982, Crash of 1987, Crash of Long Term Capital, Crash of the Russian and Asian currencies, Crash of the Internet Bubble and more yet we have ALWAYS snapped back. Note that in the early 30’s with 4 weak years we had 4 quite strong years so that the avg. US Real GDP trend has been in fact a fairly smooth procession from a smallish economy of ~3.9% to the one we have now of ~3.2%. I think you can rely on the fact that our society’s productivity has had resiliency that is basic to our system of government. I do not think that we have destroyed US productivity in our current situation. In fact the evidence suggests that productivity has improved. I for one trust that we will return to the normal trend in a couple of years including a few years better than 3.2% to reestablish the long term trend.

Turning to the SP500 chart(Below) note the earnings trend of ~6.1%. I observe that Greenspan’s tenure has resulted in higher than normal earnings volatility vs. Paul Volcker. Although I did not draw it on this chart, my previous trend had been slightly below 6% before I recently added on the last 5yrs of earnings. It would appear that as technology has entered our economy’s various nooks and crannies we have been more productive and our earnings from our existing capital has risen some what.

I view the earnings in 1974, 1982, 1987, 1990 and 2002 as low points. We are close to comparable low earnings levels today. The market psychology today is comparable with similar media headlines of crisis and fear of Depression. However, we have avoided Depressions since the 1940’s due to the Federal Reserve acting as a financial shock absorber thus giving our society and economy financial breathing space to adjust to new conditions. This is why the US Real GDP has had decidedly much less volatility over the years as the Fed has exercised its financial cushioning actions. I estimate the current Standard Deviation at +/- 2.4%. This is well below what we had experienced in the ‘30’s of +/- 14%.

Yes, we may see lower earnings than we have seen, but historically most of the damage is done in my opinion. The Fed has loosened the purse strings forcibly and in multiple modes. So that, even though the media argues in the same fashion as in the past that the Fed either has not done enough or not done it the “Right” way, the end result is that the Fed has acted forcibly and our economy remains free to sort out the process of recovery. I have sent you several studies that indicate the early stages of recovery are with us.

The advice I provide is also based on that proffered by some of the greatest investment minds of the last 50yrs, i.e. Warren Buffett, Bruce Berkowitz and many more too numerous to list. A continuous process is in use in my office to assess the current insight of the most astute investors which I believe to be extraordinarily helpful

The advice to add REITs( see 5th Chart), Nat. Res and EmgMkts as part of a balanced portfolio is based upon the longer term observations of US economic strength and history as well as other observations as noted above. The use of the Wicksell Rate and the 5yr MovAvg Return/Risk analysis( 4th Chart) is helpful to determine when asset classes evolve to carrying higher levels of risk than is appropriate. Today this means to avoid Treasuries. Berkshire’s (BRK.A) Warren Buffett just called Treasuries a “Bubble” in his latest Chairman’s Letter. A comparison of Treasuries with the current 5.4% Wicksell Rate confirms this view.

The reason for being in most available asset classes(but for Treasuries) today is simple. They all appear relatively cheap. To try to focus on one or another using an expected return is difficult. You can be right on the earnings trend, but if the market cares more about another area you will not be rewarded with expected gains. Psychology plays a huge role in all markets as most market players are trend followers. In my opinion they are “Players” not “Investors”.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):none

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Lack of Clarity Into Selling Causing Fear

“Davidson” makes a great point here. Things are getting a bit overdone here and the “who is selling and why” questions are the cause.

Wall St. Newsletters

Todd,

The current selling is pushing the SP500 down to 1xBV (~550). This occurred in 1974 and 1982 when the Wicksell Rate was ~14%(3.2% Real US GDP + 11% core inflation) and represented realistic pricing of the earnings yield for the SP500. Today, we are priced at ~10% on reduced ttm SP500 earnings in an environment of a 5.4% Wicksell Rate. This is equivalent to a Real Rate of Return for SP500 of 7.5%(10%-2.4%). This figure is at a historically high level for an inflation adjusted return back through the 1940’s.

To throw out basic financial reasoning and pricing that has been in place for ~70 years as we have done today, means that some one with little discipline is selling portfolios wholesale. I suspect foreign sellers who have used too much leverage are now delevering. Our markets have no transparency to this and are trying to make sense of something for which we lack adequate information. We are trying to garner information from price movements and making many, many wrong assumptions about risk that is not likely present. GE (GE) is a prime example.

GE’s Sherin noted that $35mil of trades over 2 days caused the fear that forced GE to lose $21bil market cap this week. GE has taken an extraordinary step to open up the books later this month to show all that they do not have the issues rumored in the market. But, note that there is great leverage in the CDS market when $35 mil can be levered into a $21bil move. That is a 600 multiplier.

I believe that GE’s Immelt is an extraordinary astute and honest manager. The insider buying in this company is so high at this time that the term “of historical proportions” does not express the true meaning. I was once a GE insider and I know the culture. It is much, much better now than when under Welch and in sound hands in my opinion.

I think we are seeing much selling from sources not transparent to us and attributing this to some one knowing more than is widely available. This is the “Boogy Man in the dark room” syndrome. If we had a benchmark which is not susceptible to emotional pricing, then we could fairly compare returns on all assets and then discount for financial risk rather than be in this overblown panic. I propose the Wicksell Rate which is based on longer trending economic fundamentals and not subject to emotional volatility.

At the current level the SP500 provides extraordinary returns. I think we are seeing liquidation by foreign companies that took cash on the books and traded it in our markets to boost earnings. This occurred during the “Japanese Bubble” and was known to have been going on with the recent boom. It is my belief that these corporate treasurers are panicking and selling to recover much needed cash.

I would be buying with cash in both fists if I were not already in. Perhaps the world should step back from the precipice and see the current activity as crazy and go in the opposite direction.

I have sent you a chart via another email of the Percentage of MM Funds vs. MM Funds and Corp Equities. The panic is clear.

“Davidson”

Here is the chart:

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GE

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books