Tag Archives: going-out

Valuation Dashboard: Energy And Materials

Summary Four key fundamental factors are reported across industries in Energy and Basic Materials. They give a valuation status of an industry relative to its historical average. They give a reference for picking stocks in each industry. This is part of a monthly series of articles giving a valuation dashboard in sectors and industries. The idea is to follow up a certain number of fundamental factors for every sector, to compare them to historical averages. This article covers Energy and Basic Materials. The choice of the fundamental ratios used in this study has been justified here and here . You can find in this article numbers that may be useful in a top-down approach. There is no analysis of individual stocks. You can refine your research reading articles by industry experts here . A link to a list of stocks to consider is provided in the conclusion. Methodology Four industry factors calculated by Portfolio123 are extracted from the database: price/earnings (P/E), price to sales (P/S), price to free cash flow (P/FCF), return on equity (ROE). They are compared with their own historical averages, “Avg.” The difference is named with a prefix “D” before the factor’s name (for example D-P/E for the price/earnings ratio). It is measured in percentage for valuation ratios and in absolute for ROE. The methodology is quite different from the S&P 500 dashboard. In some industries, S&P 500 companies are very few, so mid- and small caps are included here. Also, the fundamental industry factors are not median values, but proprietary data from the platform. The calculation aims at eliminating extreme values and size biases, which is necessary when going out of a large-cap universe. The drawback is that these factors are not representative of capital-weighted indices. They may be very useful as reference values for picking stocks in an industry, but are less relevant for ETF investors. Industry valuation table on 10/26/2015 The next table reports the four industry factors. For each factor, the next “Avg.” column gives its average between January 1999 and October 2015, taken as an arbitrary reference of fair valuation. The next “D-xxx” column is the difference between the historical average and the current value, in percentage. So there are three columns relative to P/E, and also three for each ratio. P/E Avg. D- P/E P/S Avg. D- P/S P/FCF Avg. D- P/FCF ROE Avg D-ROE Energy Equipment & Services 21.25 24.2 12.19% 0.81 1.73 53.18% 7.86 35.34 77.76% -10.59 7.34 -17.93 Oil/Gas/Fuel 17.27 18.53 6.80% 1.95 3.35 41.79% 14.22 29.03 51.02% -13.51 4.47 -17.98 Chemicals 20.04 18.48 -8.44% 1.44 1.21 -19.01% 35.4 25.37 -39.53% 9.17 6.74 2.43 Construction Materials 53.65 21.44 -150.23% 1.34 1.16 -15.52% 52 40.5 -28.40% 10.61 5.77 4.84 Packaging 21.91 17.96 -21.99% 0.92 0.61 -50.82% 21.92 20.09 -9.11% 18.58 8.34 10.24 Metals & Mining 20.74 19.83 -4.59% 1.27 2.65 52.08% 15.18 25.53 40.54% -19.81 -8.6 -11.21 Paper & Wood 31.74 21.27 -49.22% 0.77 0.72 -6.94% 21.78 22.81 4.52% 8.41 4.99 3.42 The following charts give an idea of the current valuation status of Energy and Materials industries relative to their historical average. In all cases, the higher the better. Price/Earnings Price/Sales Price/Free Cash Flow Quality (ROE) Relative Momentum The next chart compares the price action of the SPDR Select Sector ETF in Materials (NYSEARCA: XLB ) and energy (NYSEARCA: XLE ) with SPY (chart from freestockcharts.com). (click to enlarge) Conclusion Since last month, XLB has outperformed SPY by 1%, and XLE has lagged by 3%. Both have been widely underperforming the broad index in the last six months. At the industry level, Energy Equipment & Services, Oil/Fuel/Gas and Metals/Mining look undervalued relative to their historical averages, but they are in negative territory for quality. Oil/Fuel/Gas and Metals/Mining have improved since last month in valuation due to the sharp decline in oil, metal and stock prices. Oil/Fuel/Gas deteriorated in quality, but Metals/Mining is stable. Chemicals, Construction Materials and Packaging are above their historical average in quality, but overpriced for the three valuation factors. Valuation factors have deteriorated for Construction Materials since last month because of a few outliers and the relatively small number of companies in this industry. No industry in these two sectors looks globally very attractive. However, comparing individual fundamental factors to the industry factors provided in the table may help find quality stocks at a reasonable price. A list of stocks in energy and basic materials beating their industry factors is provided on this page . If you want to stay informed of my updates on this topic and other articles, click the “Follow” tab at the top of this article.

Valuation Dashboard: Utilities – November 2015

Summary 3 key factors are reported across industries in Utilities. They give a valuation status of industries relative to their history. They give a reference for picking stocks in each industry. This article is part of a series giving a valuation dashboard by sector of companies in the S&P 500 index (NYSEARCA: SPY ). I follow up a certain number of fundamental factors for every sector, and compare them to historical averages. This article is going down at industry level in the GICS classification, and includes also mid and small cap companies. It covers Utilities. The choice of the fundamental ratios has been justified here and here . You can find in this article numbers that may be useful in a top-down approach. There is no analysis of individual stocks. A link to a list of individual stocks to consider is provided at the end. Methodology Three industry factors calculated by portfolio123 are extracted from the database: Price/Earnings (P/E), Price to sales (P/S), Return on Equity (ROE). They are compared with their own historical averages “Avg”. The difference is measured in percentage for valuation ratios and in absolute for ROE, and named “D-xxx” if xxx is the factor’s name (for example D-P/E for price/earnings). The industry factors are proprietary data from the platform. The calculation aims at eliminating extreme values and size biases, which is necessary when going out of a large cap universe. These factors are not representative of capital-weighted indices. They are useful as reference values for picking stocks in an industry, not for ETF investors. The price-to-cash-flow ratio used in my dashboards for other sectors has been eliminated here, because discontinuities and outliers make it often irrelevant in Utilities. Industry valuation table on 11/4/2015 The next table reports the 3 industry factors. For each factor, the next “Avg” column gives its average between January 1999 and October 2015, taken as an arbitrary reference of fair valuation. The next “D-xxx” column is the difference as explained above. So there are 3 columns for each ratio. P/E Avg D- P/E P/S Avg D- P/S ROE Avg D-ROE Electric Utilities 18.13 15.94 -13.74% 1.77 1.22 -45.08% 8.94 10.43 -1.49 Gas Utilities 21.8 17.24 -26.45% 1.46 0.97 -50.52% 10.34 11.49 -1.15 Multi-Utilities 19 16.59 -14.53% 1.67 0.95 -75.79% 10.22 9.48 0.74 Water Utilities 22.89 23.68 3.34% 4.7 3.94 -19.29% 3.5 7.96 -4.46 Ind.Power Prod. & Energy Traders* 34.92 34.9 -0.06% 3.33 4.16 19.95% -4.22 -5.15 0.93 * Averages since 2005 Valuation The following charts give an idea of the current status of industries relative to their historical average. In all cases, the higher the better. Price/Earnings: Price/Sales: Quality (ROE) Relative Momentum The next chart compares the price action of the SPDR Select Sector ETF (NYSEARCA: XLU ) with SPY (chart from freestockcharts.com). (click to enlarge) Conclusion Utilities have played their traditional defensive role during the correction in August, but XLU has slightly underperformed the broad market last 6 months. Looking at the valuation and quality charts above, only one industry looks attractive: Independent Power Producers and Energy Traders. Its industry P/E factor points to a fair pricing, and the 2 other factors are better than their historical averages. At the opposite, Electric and Gas Utilities look the less attractive, the 3 factors being worse than averages. However, there may be quality stocks at a reasonable price in any industry. To check them out, you can compare individual fundamental factors to the industry factors provided in the table. As an example, a list of stocks in Utilities beating their industry factors is provided on this page . If you want to stay informed of my updates, click the “Follow” tab at the top of this article. You can choose the “real-time” option if you want to be instantly notified.

Investing In Airlines Without Nosediving

Summary Two alternatives for airline investors are to pick individual airline stocks or to purchase shares of an airline industry ETF. The ETF ameliorates stock-specific risk via diversification, but allocates only small amounts to some of the most promising stocks. We present a 3rd alternative: using the hedged portfolio method to create a concentrated portfolio of top airline stocks that strictly limits stock-specific as well as other kinds of risk. A Third Way Between JETS and Individual Airline Stocks The worst sort of business is one that grows rapidly, requires significant capital to engender the growth, and then earns little or no money. Think airlines. Here a durable competitive advantage has proven elusive ever since the days of the Wright Brothers. Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down. –Warren Buffett It’s customary to quote Warren Buffett’s bearishness on the industry when writing about airline stocks, and the Buffett quote above, from the 2007 Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.B ) shareholder letter , is my favorite. Seeking Alpha contributor Harm Elderman chose another good one in his recent article on the US Global Jets ETF (NYSEARCA: JETS ) (“Time To Re-Examine JETS: The Airline ETF”). Elderman’s article is worth reading in full, but this graphic he included does a great job of laying out the way the JETS ETF is diversified. That diversification, as Elderman notes, offers an interesting tradeoff. Elderman points out that, due to the way JETS is structured, particularly in the second point in the graphic above, his top airline pick at midyear, Hawaiian Holdings (NASDAQ: HA ), as a second-tier domestic airline, only gets a 4% allocation in the ETF. So a JETS investor would have gotten relatively little benefit from HA’s 35% year-to-date performance. On the other hand, had HA done as poorly as another airline mentioned in Elderman’s article, Avianca Holdings (NYSE: AVH ), which is down nearly 67% year-to-date, its impact on JETS’ performance would have been similarly limited. Nevertheless, as Elderman points out, JETS has outperformed the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) year to date, up 6.13%, as of Tuesday’s close, versus DIA, which was down 1.24% over the same time frame, so it may be worthy of consideration for investors looking for exposure to the airline industry without incurring the risk of picking a handful of airline stocks on their own. In this article, though, we’ll look at a third way of investing in airline stocks, one that can give us bigger exposure to stocks like HA, but with less risk than owning the ETF. When Stocks Can Be Safer Than An ETF It may seem counterintuitive that owning a handful of airline stocks could be safer than owning an ETF that holds dozens of them, but that can be the case when you hold those stocks within a hedged portfolio. Although JETS ameliorates stock-specific risk via diversification, it’s still subject to industry risk and systemic, or market risk. You can strictly limit your potential downside due to any of those risks with the hedged portfolio method . Below, we’ll show how to use that method to construct a concentrated portfolio of airline stocks using JETS’ top holdings as a starting point, for an investor who is unwilling to risk a drawdown of more than 20%, and has $500,000 that he wants to invest. First, though, let’s address the issue of risk tolerance, and how it affects potential return. Risk Tolerance and Potential Return All else equal, with a hedged portfolio, the greater an investor’s risk tolerance — the greater the maximum drawdown he is willing to risk (his “threshold”, in our terminology) – the higher his potential return will be. So, we should expect that an investor who is willing to risk a 30% decline will have a chance at higher potential returns than one who is only willing to risk a 10% drawdown. In our example, we’ll be splitting the difference and using a 20% threshold (less than a third of the drop AVH shareholders have experienced so far this year). Constructing A Hedged Portfolio We’ll recap the hedged portfolio method here briefly, and then explain how you can implement it yourself using JETS’ top holdings as a starting point. Finally, we’ll present an example of a hedged portfolio that was constructed this way with an automated tool. The process, in broad strokes, is this: Find securities with relatively high potential returns. Find securities that are relatively inexpensive to hedge. Buy a handful of securities that score well on the first two criteria; in other words, buy a handful of securities with high potential returns net of their hedging costs (or, ones with high net potential returns). Hedge them. The potential benefits of this approach are two-fold: If you are successful at the first step (finding securities with high potential returns), and you hold a concentrated portfolio of them, your portfolio should generate decent returns over time. If you are hedged, and your return estimates are completely wrong, on occasion — or the market moves against you — your downside will be strictly limited. How to Implement This Approach Finding Promising Stocks If we were looking for securities with the highest potential returns, we wouldn’t limit ourselves to airline industry stocks; instead, we’d consider a much broader universe of stocks. But since we’re concerned with airline stocks here, we’ll start with the top holdings of JETS. To quantify potential returns for JETS’ top holdings, you can sign up for Harm Elderman’s premium research via Seeking Alpha’s Marketplace. Alternatively, if you are impecunious and willing to put yourself at the mercy of Wall Street’s sell side analysts, you can use their consensus price targets as a starting point for your estimates, adjusting it based on the time frame you’re using and whether you think it is overly optimistic or not. For example, via Nasdaq, here is the analysts’ 12-month consensus price target for Hawaiian Airlines: In general, though, you’ll need to use the same time frame for each of your potential return calculations to facilitate comparisons of potential returns, hedging costs, and net expected returns. Our method starts with calculations of six-month expected returns. Finding inexpensive ways to hedge these securities Our method attempts to find optimal static hedges using collars as well as protective puts going out approximately six months. Whatever hedging method you use, for this example, you’d want to make sure that each security is hedged against a greater-than-20% decline over the time frame covered by your potential return calculations. And you’ll need to calculate your cost of hedging as a percentage of position value. Select the securities with highest net potential returns When starting from a large universe of securities, you’d want to select the ones with the highest potential returns, net of hedging costs; you can do the same here, starting with the top holdings in JETS, but, in any case, you’ll at least want to exclude any of them that has a negative potential return net of hedging costs. It doesn’t make sense to pay X to hedge a stock if you estimate the stock will return 1.93x higher. In this case, the net potential returns were > 1.93x higher when hedged with optimal collars in each case. Here’s a closer look at the optimal collar edge on HA: This optimal collar is capped at 12.06% because that’s the potential return the site calculated for HA. The idea is to have a shot at capturing that, while offsetting the cost of hedging by selling someone else the right to buy HA if it goes higher than the site expects it to. As you can see at the bottom of the image above, the cost of the put protection on HA was $3,420, or 5.41% as a percentage of position value. However, if you look at the image below, you’ll see that the income from selling the call leg of this collar was $2,610, or 4.13% as a percentage of position value. So the net cost of the collar was $810, or 1.28%.[i] Note that, although the cost of this hedge was positive, the overall cost of hedging the portfolio was negative . Possibly More Protection Than Promised In some cases, hedges such as the ones in the portfolio above can provide more protection than promised. For an example of that, see what happened to a hedge on Sketchers (NYSE: SKX ) after that stock plummeted 31%. [i] To be conservative, this optimal collar shows the puts being purchased at their ask price, and the calls being sold at their bid price. In practice, an investor can often buy the puts for less (i.e., at some point between the bid and ask prices) and sell the calls for more (again, at some point between the bid and ask). So the actual cost of opening this collar would have likely been less. The same is true of the other hedges in the portfolio, the costs of which were calculated in the same conservative manner.