Posts Tagged ‘October 19’

Stocks and risky assets stumble

Thursday, October 29th, 2009


I concluded a post on stock markets over the weekend saying: “After equities’ seven-month climb, stock markets certainly look vulnerable for a decline. Two downside reversal days - on Wednesday and Friday - would seem to indicate that stocks could commence a pullback to work off the overbought condition, allowing fundamentals to reassert themselves.”

Global stock markets, as well as other risky assets, closed sharply lower over the past few days as concerns mounted over the sustainability of the global economic recovery and the outlook for central bank policy.

The performance of the major asset classes is summarized by the charts below, with the top one showing the period from the March 9 stock market lows until October 19 peak and the second one the subsequent period. The numbers indicate an all-change pattern in the performances as risk aversion re-entered financial markets and government bonds and the US dollar regained some favor.

grafiek1

Source: StockCharts.com

grafiek2

Source: StockCharts.com

A summary of the movements of major global stock markets since the March 19 peak, as well as various other measurement periods, is given in the table below.

The MSCI World Index and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index have declined by 5.3% and 6.2% respectively since the highs of October 19, with markets like Ireland (‑13.2%), Brazil (-10.5%), Austria (-10.8%) and Belgium (-9.0%) falling by significantly more. Also, higher risk indices such as small caps have borne the brunt of the selling, with the Russell 2000 Index down by 9.0%. This is a pattern that one would expect as investors shift the emphasis to higher quality.

Click here or on the table below for a larger image.

tabel-s

The major moving-average levels for the benchmark US indices, the BRIC countries and South Africa (where I am based) are given in the table below. A number of indices, including the S&P 500 Index, have fallen below their 50-day moving averages over the past few days, but all the indices are still holding above their respective 200-day moving averages. The 50-day lines are also above the 200-day lines in all instances.

The October lows are also given in the table as a break below these levels would indicate a reversal of the uptrend since March, i.e. reversing the progression of higher reaction lows.

Click here or on the table below for a larger image.

chartlevelsmall

Over the past few days a number of commentators have made pronouncements about the extent of a possible decline. For example, Jeremy Grantham (GMO) expects the S&P 500 to drop by 15% to 25%, David Rosenberg (Gluskin Sheff & Associates) sees markets falling by 20% and Doug Kass is looking at -5% to -12%.

This brings me to the topic of valuations. Based on operating earnings (i.e. stripping out everything that is bad), the historical price/earnings (PE) multiple of the S&P 500 is 27.0; using “as reported” (GAAP) earnings the figure shoots up to a giddy 95.7! Getting past the loss-making fourth quarter of 2008 and calculating prospective multiples through December 31, 2009 reduce the valuations to 19.0 and 24.4 respectively. Looking further out to the end of 2010, the prospective PEs are 14.1 and 22.9 respectively - still hardly the type of valuations that will inspire one to be a buyer across the board. (The earnings estimates are courtesy of Standard & Poor’s.)

Another way of looking at valuation levels, and cutting through the uncertainty of having to forecast earnings, is by means of Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio (CAPE), effectively muting the impact of the business cycle by averaging ten years of earnings. Using rolling ten-year reported earnings, my research (based on Shiller’s methodology, but including some refinements) shows that the “normalized” price-earnings ratio of the S&P 500 Index is currently 18.7. This compares with a long-term average of just more than 16.3 and implies an overvaluation of 15%. Considering a geometric rather than an arithmetic average of earnings, the overvaluation increases to 25%. The graphs below show data since 1950, but the actual calculations date back to 1871

sp1

sp2

Meanwhile, David Rosenberg highlights that this is not the onset of a sustainable secular bull market as we had coming off the fundamental lows of prior bear phases, such as August 1982, when:

• Dividend yields were 6%, not sub-2%.

• Price-to-earnings multiples were 8x, not 27x.

• The market traded at book value, not more than twice book.

• Inflation and bond yields were in double digits and headed down in the future, not near-zero and only headed higher.

• The stock market competed with 18% cash rates, not zero, and as such had a much higher hurdle to clear.

• Sentiment was universally bearish; hardly the case today.

• Global trade flows were in the process of accelerating as barriers were taken down; today, we are seeing trade flows recede as frictions, disputes and tariffs become the order of the day.

• A Reagan-led movement was afoot to reduce the role of government with attendant productivity gains in the future, as opposed to the infiltration by the public sector into the capital markets, union sector, economy and of course, the realm of CEO compensation.

Back to charting, Adam Hewison (INO.com) also sounded a cautious note on the outlook for the S&P 500 as explained in one of his popular technical analysis presentations. Click here to access the presentation.

I conclude with a comment from David Fuller (Fullermoney) who said: “At this stage of the bull cycle, I think a correction of approximately 10-15% for developed country stock markets and somewhat more for emerging markets would be good news for investors with cash to invest. Such a mean reversion towards rising 200-day moving averages would blow the recent froth off valuations and stem talk of an early change in monetary policy.”

I will bide my time while the fundamentals play catch-up. Meanwhile, caution remains the operative word.

by-nc-sa

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Emerging Markets, Markets | No Comments »


Jeremy Grantham: “Fair value on the S&P is 860″

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009


Jeremy Grantham has become a familiar and very popular face on this site. For those treasuring his insight, wisdom and prescient calls, the co-founder and chief investment strategist of Boston-based GMO has just published the October edition of his quarterly newsletter entitled “Just desserts and markets being silly again”.

jeremy

Before quoting from the report, Grantham recently put matters into perspective in a Kiplinger article, saying: “The recent rally has been very speculative, favoring risky assets over the past few months. I’m sorry if you missed investing at the market’s March lows, but don’t compound the damage to your portfolio by chasing gains in risky assets. We’re at the beginning of a seven-year period of lean returns. You should only be buying the highest-quality blue-chip com­panies, where valuations are most attractive.”

Here are a few excerpts from the Grantham’s newsletter.

“Corporate ex-financials profit margins remain above average and, if I am right about the coming seven lean years, we will soon enough look back nostalgically at such high profits. Price/earnings ratios, adjusted for even normal margins, are also significantly above fair value after the rally. Fair value on the S&P is now about 860 (fair value has declined steadily as the accounting smoke clears from the wreckage and there are still, perhaps, some smoldering embers). This places today’s market (October 19) at almost 25% overpriced, and on a seven-year horizon would move our normal forecast of 5.7% real down by more than 3% a year. Doesn’t it seem odd that we would be measurably overpriced once again, given that we face a seven-year future that almost everyone agrees will be tougher than normal?

Advertisement


“Price … does matter eventually, and what will stop this market (my blind guess is in the first few months of next year) is a combination of two factors. First, the disappointing economic and financial data that will begin to show the intractably long-term nature of some of our problems, particularly pressure on profit margins as the quick fix of short-term labor cuts fades away. Second, the slow gravitational pull of value as US stocks reach +30-35% overpricing in the face of an extended difficult environment.

“It is hard for me to see what will stop the charge to risk-taking this year. With the near universality of the feeling of being left behind in reinvesting, it is nerve-wracking for us prudent investors to contemplate the odds of the market rushing past my earlier prediction of 1,100. It can certainly happen. Conversely, I have some modest hopes for a collective sensible resistance to the current Fed plot to have us all borrow and speculate again. I would still guess (a well-informed guess, I hope) that before next year is out, the market will drop painfully from current levels. ‘Painfully’ is arbitrarily deemed by me to start at -15%. My guess, though, is that the US market will drop below fair value, which is a 22% decline (from the S&P 500 level of 1,098 on October 19).

“Unlike the really tough bears, though, I see no need for a new low. I think the history books will be happy enough with the 666 of last February.”

Click here for the full report on Grantham’s reasoning for his cautious stance.

Source: Jeremy Grantham, GMO, October 2009.

by-nc-sa

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Markets | No Comments »


David Rosenberg: “Market has overshot the fundamentals”

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009


David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist of Gluskin Sheff & Associates, discusses the outlook for the stock market in the video below.

“My view is that we are still in a secular bear market … My big concern is that the market has gotten ahead of the economy. The S&P is pricing in $85 dollars of operating earnings which would be a doubling from where we are right now, and it usually takes four to five years to double earnings off a recession low … The market has clearly overshot the fundamentals,” said Rosenberg.

Source: CNBC, October 19, 2009.

by-nc-sa

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Markets | No Comments »