Tag Archives: etf-hub

The Chinese Government Just Rigged The Market In Your Favor

Summary The Chinese government has taken unprecedented measures to support its A-shares market. Both intuition and history indicate that these measures will likely be successful. Buy A-shares now, or on any dip. The Chinese stock market crash has been making headlines recently, with much of the focus being on the government’s unsuccessful and seemingly desperate efforts to engineer a reversal. From cutting interest rates and reserve ratios, to suspending new IPOs and directing various government entities to purchase shares, nothing seemed to work. Eventually, the People’s Bank of China began providing “unlimited liquidity” to state-owned China Securities Finance Corp in order to fund stock purchases. History has taught us that when central banks print money in order to buy publicly traded assets, the prices of those assets go up relative to the currency being printed. So this on its own was a very big deal. While it was becoming increasingly clear that the Chinese government really , really wants their mainland stock market to go up, their next move was so heavy-handed, and so fundamentally alters the risk-reward calculus for owning Chinese stocks, that it all but guarantees a profit for anyone buying A-shares (NYSEARCA: ASHR ). China makes it illegal to sell stocks On July 8, 2015, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) announced that directors, supervisors, senior management personnel, and anyone with more than 5% of the stock outstanding in a company, are not allowed to sell their shares for the next 6 months . This is in addition to having already directed state-owned pension funds, insurance companies, securities firms and other institutions to buy and hold shares. Private companies are not allowed to sell equity because IPOs are frozen. Public companies have been instructed not to sell and are required to submit reports on measures they will take to support their share price. The 21 largest Chinese brokerages have pledged to buy stock and not sell any of it until the Shanghai Composite goes above 4500. China Investment Corporation, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, has begun purchasing Chinese ETFs. You get the picture. All of these people and entities are forbidden from selling. You’re kidding me If this sounds incredible, keep in mind that the Chinese government has immense power over its people and is not shy about exercising its authority in ways that the West might consider uncouth. This is the same government that filters internet search results and imprisons non-violent political dissidents. Recognizing that the sell-off in A-shares was caused by the fear of losing money, the Chinese government has decided to counter this fear with the greater fear of being imprisoned, tortured and sent to a forced labor camp . The Ministry of Public Security has already launched investigations into “malicious shortselling” of Ping An ( OTCPK:PIAIF ) and PetroChina (NYSE: PTR ) stock on July 8th. So who can sell? Individual investors, who hold 25.03% of A-shares by market cap , can sell unless they fall under the CSRC’s definition of an insider as mentioned above. Professional institutions make up only 14.22% of the A-shares market cap, and only some of them, including qualified foreign institutional investors, can sell. Judging from the CSRC data below, I estimate that less than 10% of professional institutions would be able to sell without being charged with a crime. The rest of the market cap is owned by general institutions, which cannot sell . We can thereby deduce that less than 35% of the A-shares market cap is held by entities which are not prohibited from selling. We then need to halve this number because more than half of all stocks on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges have been halted . Thus, less than 17.5% of the A-shares market cap is now available to be sold. Supply and Demand To sum it up, the supply of A-shares available to be sold has been dramatically reduced by government edict and the demand for A-shares has been dramatically increased by government purchasing. Anyone who has taken an introductory course in microeconomics knows that a decrease in supply or an increase in demand, much less a simultaneous occurrence of both, will cause the price of the good in question to go up. Which is why on July 9, 2015, the Shanghai Composite had its biggest daily gain since 2009. If only a minority of people can sell, and the government is printing money to buy everything in sight, then the supply of stock certificates not held by the government will decrease, and thereby command progressively greater prices. In other words, China is now the mother of all “low float rockets,” a colloquialism often used in the momentum investing community. Chinese stock exchanges impose a 10% limit on daily price increases, and only three trading days have elapsed since the government first announced its ban on selling. This means that there is still plenty of upside remaining as the government continues to push share prices to levels that reflect their narrative of an intact bull market. Valuation It is worth noting that valuation metrics on the Shanghai Composite appear cheap, and are nowhere near previous highs: (click to enlarge) Legendary investor Jim Rogers began buying the dip as early as June 26th . Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and many others have recently turned bullish. Investment Thesis However, valuation is not at all important to my investment thesis, which is instead based on two very simple premises: 1) The Chinese government wants Chinese stock prices to rise and 2) The Chinese government is capable of causing Chinese stock prices to rise. If you believe these two statements are true, then by necessity, the Chinese stock market must go up. There are a myriad of reasons for why the Chinese government wants to rescue its stock market: avoiding financial contagion , transforming into a consumer-driven economy , and keeping their citizens from revolting , to name a few. Their actions, however, are what speak volumes about how serious and committed they are to this cause. I believe that they are willing to do whatever it takes to make their stock market go up, and there are rumors that they are readying an even larger fund for direct stock purchases . The second premise, the question of capability, is even more intuitive. The Chinese government has unequivocal authority to regulate assets domiciled in China and traded on Chinese exchanges. Shares in Chinese companies only have value within the context of Chinese corporate law, and because the law is written by the government, and the higher levels of government are not accountable to voters, there is nothing to stop the government from doing whatever they want. Wealthy Chinese shareholders aren’t going to risk imprisonment just to make a few extra yuan. Even if they were stupid enough to try placing a sell order, brokerages are simply refusing to execute those orders . Historical Precedent The media has been a harsh critic of this market intervention, just as they were harshly critical of previous market interventions such as the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing (QE) program and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s famous short squeeze of the Hang Seng Index. It’s true that market interventions such as these reduce liquidity and thereby increase fragility and systemic risk. The global asset bubble is something that keeps me awake at night. But regardless of whatever long-term consequences may arise as a result of such market interventions, no one can deny that when central banks print money to buy assets, those assets do rally. (click to enlarge) The closest historical analogue to China’s ban on selling occurred when Japan’s Ministry of Finance instructed its banks not to sell stocks on August 18, 1992. The Nikkei responded by rallying 32% over the next three weeks in a straight, almost uninterrupted line. The chart above is not exhaustive, history is littered with examples of successful market interventions. Some countries such as Taiwan have funds permanently designated for supporting stock prices. Momentum Once investor confidence is restored, rising prices will lead to more rising prices, which will catalyze a second leg to this rally and possibly even reflate the bubble. China does not yet have much of a stock market investing culture, and only 13% of household wealth is invested into its stock market versus about 50% for U.S. households. If Chinese households decide to hop on for the ride, they have ample dry powder to do so. Human beings are genetically predisposed to move in herds, and if it happened before, it can happen again. Risk Factors The government could change their mind and give up on trying to support share prices, which I truly believe will not happen, but anything is possible. It’s also possible that they could lose control of the market, especially if large shareholders figure out a way to sell their holdings without being detected. In order to combat this possibility, the government is asking brokerages to provide the names and national ID numbers of its account holders . The largest risk for foreign retail investors such as the readers of this article, is probably ETF tracking risk. It’s possible that due to half of the A-shares market being halted, ETFs such as ASHR will have trouble tracking their underlying indices. In other words, when Chinese stocks decline, the U.S. traded ETFs that track them could decline by a much greater amount. The opposite is also true. Last Friday, the ChiNext index on the Shenzhen stock exchange rose by 4.11%, but (NYSEARCA: CNXT ), the ETF that aims to track it, rose by 23.32%. A nice surprise for the traders who went long the day before. Disclosure: I am/we are long ASHR. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: I am long ASHR in client accounts through my investment management company, Honey Badger Capital Management.

Dual Momentum July Update

Scott’s Investments provides a free ” Dual ETF Momentum ” spreadsheet, which was originally created in February 2013. The strategy was inspired by a paper written by Gary Antonacci and available on Optimal Momentum . Antonacci’s book, ” Dual Momentum Investing: An Innovative Strategy for Higher Returns with Lower Risk “, also details Dual Momentum as a total portfolio strategy. My Dual ETF Momentum spreadsheet is available here , and the objective is to track four pairs of ETFs and provide an “Invested” signal for the ETF in each pair with the highest relative momentum. Invested signals also require positive absolute momentum, hence the term “Dual Momentum”. Relative momentum is gauged by the 12-month total returns of each ETF. The 12-month total returns of each ETF is also compared to a short-term Treasury ETF (a “cash” filter) in the form of the iShares Barclays 1-3 Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: SHY ). In order to have an “Invested” signal, the ETF with the highest relative strength must also have 12-month total returns greater than the 12-month total returns of SHY. This is the absolute momentum filter, which is detailed in depth by Antonacci, and has historically helped increase risk-adjusted returns. An “average” return signal for each ETF is also available on the spreadsheet. The concept is the same as the 12-month relative momentum. However, the “average” return signal uses the average of the past 3-, 6-, and 12- (“3/6/12”) month total returns for each ETF. The “invested” signal is based on the ETF with the highest relative momentum for the past 3, 6, and 12 months. The ETF with the highest average relative strength must also have an average 3/6/12 total returns greater than the 3/6/12 total returns of the cash ETF. Portfolio123 was used to test a similar strategy using the same portfolios and combined momentum score (“3/6/12”). The test results were posted in the 2013 Year in Review and the January 2015 Update. Below are the four portfolios along with current signals: (click to enlarge) As an added bonus, the spreadsheet also has four additional sheets using a dual momentum strategy with broker-specific commission-free ETFs for TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, Fidelity, and Vanguard. It is important to note that each broker may have additional trade restrictions, and the terms of their commission-free ETFs could change in the future. Disclosures: None Share this article with a colleague

U.S. Regulated Utilities Sector Is Fairly Valued At Current Levels

Summary Weakness in natural gas/power prices to continue for the next 3-4 years. On-going coal retirement plan to have a negligible impact on natural gas prices. Stringent environmental policies may lead to structural changes in the utilities sector. Consolidation of utilities sector continues for the next 2-3 years. In 2014, utilities sector was one of the best performing sectors in the S&P 500 but much of that outperformance has eroded since the beginning of 2015. Key economic indicators such as job market, inflation and Fed rate increase have put significant pressure on utilities stocks. I expect utilities sector as a whole to underperform and investors need to be choosy in the sector before investing. Weakness in natural gas/power prices to continue for the next 3-4 years The weakness in natural gas prices is expected to continue for the next 3-4 years given oversupply, continued operations of cash strapped nuclear plants and on-going coal retirement plans. The natural gas production in South West and North East Marcellus has increased significantly. PJM forward gas prices trade at a discount to Henry Hub as the production especially in Marcellus has already outpaced the capacity reduction. Lack of pipeline infrastructure projects from the companies and strong production growth should maintain the current trend for the next 3-4 years. Recently EIA has also increased the natural gas production outlook for 2015 and 2016 by around 1bcf/day. I believe the on-going coal retirement plan impacts the natural gas prices slightly and not enough to impact forward prices. On the downward side, higher penetration of renewable energy resource will offset any increase in demand for gas due to coal retirement. US Federal has also asked certain cash-strapped nuclear power plants to continue running for some more time (earlier intended to shut down for economic reasons) that would create downward pressure on natural gas prices. Most of the utilities hedge for the short term but in the long-term they will be under greater risk. I don’t see any decrease in gas prices from the current level going forward. The most impacted to forward gas prices are the base-load generators such as American Electric Power Company (NYSE: AEP ), Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC ) and Entergy Corporation (NYSE: ETR ) that use only coal and nuclear energy for power generation. These companies look less competitive in a low gas price trend. On the power prices, electric utilities industry is estimated to experience a weak or negative electric demand growth in the next 2-3 years. PJM West is currently oversupplied making the power prices different than in PJM East. I believe some supply from PJM West will be transferred to capacity-constrained PJM East and over a time the difference should dissipate. On-going coal retirement plan to have a negligible impact on natural gas prices Due to stringent environmental policies such as MATS and 111D of Clean Air Act power for CO2 emission reduction, utilities have been asked by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to retire certain coal assets that are not economical and environment friendly. Around 60-70GW of coal capacity is expected to be retired in the next two years. I believe the bulk of retirement to happen from mid 2015 to 2016. As mentioned earlier, the impact of coal retirement on gas prices is very negligible given the high rate of gas production growth, continuous operations of nuclear plants and renewable penetration. As per Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates, the contribution from coal energy to national power generation will go down to 30% from the current level of 45% once all the coal retirement is done (expected by 2019) and the contribution from natural gas will increase to 40% from the current level of 23%. Stringent environmental policies may lead to structural changes in the utilities sector 111D of the Clean Air Act: In 2014, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released proposed CO2 (Carbon) reduction targets that would reduce carbon emissions for existing coal plants (in utilities sector) around 19% in 2030 from 2012 levels (30% reduction from 2005 levels). While I expect a final rule from EPA by August 2015, it will require each state to submit a SIP (State Implementation Plan) by mid-year 2016 for compliance. Each state will be required to meet its specific targets starting in 2020 through 2030. MATS (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards) : MATS sets standards for Mercury and other air toxics generated by coal and oil plants that are larger than 25MW. Everyone will need to comply including investor-owned utilities and public power utilities. The objective of the Standard is to bring old power plants to new technology. With the current gas price environment, these plants are uneconomical to rejuvenate. As mentioned earlier, certain cash-strapped nuclear plants have been asked to continue running though they are not economical under the depressed natural gas prices. The main reason was to provide room for states to adhere to Clean Air Act. Allowing nuclear plants to shut down will make it more challenging for states to meet stringent requirements and create capacity constraints. Under depressed gas prices, nuclear plants look uneconomical Under depressed natural gas prices, running a nuclear power plant has become uneconomical for utilities. The quark spread (power price minus uranium cost) has consistently decreased over the past few years. However the US Federal asked utilities companies to keep running certain nuclear assets to make room for retiring coal assets. Under the policy, I believe few utilities benefit and few others loose in the short run. A clear beneficiary is base-load nuclear operator EXC and looser is base load coal operators like First Energy (NYSE: FE ). Consolidation of utilities sector continues for the next 2-3 years Under the weak economy, utilities are thirsty for growth. The industry has seen a lot of acquisitions recently (few are mentioned below). I expect the industry consolidation to continue for the next 2-3 years as there is going to structural changes in the industry due to new regulations. Acquirer Target Deal status Duke Energy Progressive Energy Completed NRG Energy GenOn Completed Teco Energy New Mexico Gas Completed Berkshire NV Energy Completed Fortis UNS Completed Exelon Pepco Pending Source: Google I believe the utilities mainly look for targets that are small/mid cap utilities, having exposure to renewable energy, under single state jurisdictions and having good regulatory construct. Future deals will be mainly towards acquiring growth, improving acquirer’s earnings profile etc. Over the last 2 years, multiples paid for acquiring utilities were in the range of 18x-24x. As the utilities are currently trading in the range of 13-15x forward earnings, they look very attractive for any takeover bid. On the other side, utilities are reducing exposure to non-core assets (merchant power generation assets). Given highly volatile commodities market, merchant power generation assets look unworthy for the investors. In order to improve multiples for the regulated assets, power companies have been forced to sell merchant assets. I believe generating assets in a bleak power cycle are worth more in a regulated environment than in pure-play independent power producer (IPP). In last 2 years, we have seen EXC, FE, PPL, DUK and NEE selling their merchant generation business. Who will be potential sellers now? FirstEnergy and American Electric Power are two potential sellers of their merchant assets. Both have publicly confirmed that an outright sale of their merchant generation is highly likely. Solar energy to support capacity reduction due to coal retirement Solar energy should continue to play an important role within the utilities industry. Most of the companies that declined to adapt to solar energy earlier have already started to spend on solar energy assets. Solar growth will remain healthy going forward as utilities: (1) see solar energy as highly economical, (2) look for fuel diversification, and (3) meet legislative mandates. With utilities retiring significant coal assets and nuclear viability continuing to face headwinds, the companies have been highly dependent on natural gas. As the natural gas is highly volatile federal level and state level regulators have been in significant pressure to look find alternative viable energy source. The time has come for utilities to diversify their generation assets (adding solar capacity) and reduce the volatility and any unexpected surge in gas prices. On the negative side, solar will slowly start gaining momentum and steal volumes from utilities at the peak time of the day when generators make the most margin. New capacity performance auction to reward utilities that adhere to auction rules PJM capacity market ensures long-term grid reliability by procuring the appropriate amount of power supply resources needed to meet predicted energy demand three years in the future. Increased outages during the 2013/2014 polar vortex triggered FERC to change capacity regulations (mainly in the upcoming auction regulations for 2018-2019 planning year) in order companies to strictly adhere to stipulated supply. In extreme weather conditions, power generators were impacted with mechanical issues and natural gas supply interruptions. PJM claims that the existing capacity bid offers set at the avoidable cost rate (ACR) are unable to secure reliable capacity. In order to secure reliable capacity, PJM has introduced a new capacity performance (NYSE: CP ) resource product with higher rewards and penalties. Upcoming capacity auction timeline PJM is holding two transitional auctions for 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 this summer. The first will take offers July 27 and 28 and results will be posted on the 30th Jule. The auction for 2017/2018 will take offers August 3 and 4 and results will be posted on August 6, 2015. Work for the 2018/2019 auction will start later this month, but it is being held from August 10-14 and the results will be announced on August 21, 2015. Regulated utilities look fairly priced There seems to be an inverse correlation between bond yields and forward P/E multiples of utilities companies. I expect the interest rates to start picking up from 2016 but not until the presidential elections. Regulated utilities I have valued regulated utilities based on 2016 P/E multiple. From the industry point of view, utilities look fairly valued. Given regulated utilities trading at 15.0x forward 2016 earnings (in line with their fundamentals), we see minimal price upside for the sector as a whole. However, investors could expect an average dividend yield of 4%. I would recommend investors to be choosy in investing in to utilities. Utilities such as PPL and GXP look very attractive at their current levels. Independent power producers (IPP) I have valued merchant assets based on EV/EBITDA multiple. The average multiple for the industry is 8.3x that indicates most of the (TLN, CPN and NRG) independent power producers are trading at low levels indicating good entry point for the investors.     Market Current P/E Dividend Yield Regulated Utilities   Cap, $bn Price, $ 2015E 2016E 2017E 2015E 2016E 2017E American Electric Power Co Inc AEP 27.2 55.56 15.8x 15.0x 14.2x 4.5% 3.9% 3.9% Consolidated Edison Inc ED 17.8 60.81 15.4x 15.2x 14.6x 4.2% 4.3% 4.4% Dominion Resources Inc/VA D 40.9 68.96 18.6x 17.8x 16.9x 5.1% 4.9% 4.6% DTE Energy Co DTE 13.9 77.51 16.7x 15.8x 14.8x 3.6% 3.8% 4.1% Duke Energy Corp DUK 51.4 74.37 15.9x 15.1x 14.3x 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% Edison International EIX 18.9 57.95 16.1x 14.9x 13.8x 2.9% 3.2% 3.6% Eversource Energy ES 14.9 46.89 16.4x 15.4x 14.6x 3.6% 3.8% 4.1% Great Plains Energy Inc GXP 3.9 25.30 16.7x 13.8x 13.3x 4.0% 4.3% 4.7% NextEra Energy Inc NEE 45.1 101.64 18.0x 16.7x 15.8x 3.0% 3.3% 3.5% PG&E Corp PCG 24.5 51.12 14.8x 13.5x 13.7x 3.6% 3.8% 4.1% Pinnacle West Capital Corp PNW 6.7 60.32 15.7x 15.0x 14.3x 4.0% 4.2% 4.4% PPL Corp PPL 20.7 31.03 14.2x 13.6x 13.3x 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% Southern Co/The SO 39.4 43.36 15.3x 14.8x 14.3x 5.0% 5.2% 5.3% TECO Energy Inc TE 4.3 18.44 16.8x 15.6x 14.5x 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% Westar Energy Inc WR 4.8 36.56 16.3x 14.9x 14.5x 3.9% 4.1% 4.4% Average       16.2x 15.1x 14.5x 4.1% 4.2% 4.4%         EV/EBITDA Dividend Yield Independent Power Producers       2015E 2016E 2017E 2015E 2016E 2017E Calpine Corp CPN 6.5 17.37 8.9x 8.8x 8.5x       NRG Energy Inc NRG 7.3 21.76 8.4x 8.8x 9.5x 2.7% 3.0% 3.3% Talen Energy TLN 2.2 17.26 7.3x 7.4x 7.8x       Average       8.2x 8.3x 8.6x 2.7% 3.0% 3.3% Source: Google Finance Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.