Tag Archives: lightbox

What Mixed Earnings Say About Casino ETF?

Casino stocks have been suffering the curse of choppy Macau business for quite a long time now. Though the other key region for casino business – Las Vegas – has been on a recovery mode, full-fledged improvement is yet to be seen. Notably, Macau – a Chinese territory – is one of the largest casino gaming destinations in the world. Credit crunch issues in mainland China, check on illegal money transfers especially in VIP gaming, and a broad-based slowdown in China led casino operations to doze off. Though this long-criticized zone recorded a 9.5% decline in gambling revenue in April, the fall was less than expected. This definitely sparks off hopes over positive developments in the region. Investors should note that April numbers revealed the 23rd successive monthly drop in revenues. Against this background, casino stocks reported earnings in the last few days. Investors might be interested in knowing how badly casino earnings were hurt due to the sagging Macau business or how smartly these companies navigated the troubles, and definitely their impact on the casino ETF. Q1 Earnings in Detail MGM Resorts International (NYSE: MGM ) posted first-quarter 2016 earnings of $0.16 per share on May 5. Earnings surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.13, but were lower than the year-ago earnings of $0.26. Revenues were down 5.2% to $2.21 billion and fell short of the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $2.31 billion. The downside reflects a significant decline in revenues from MGM China. VIP gambling continues to be a drag in China. However, net revenue at wholly-owned domestic resorts was up 2.6%. MGM shares gained about 1.9% on May 5. In late April, Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS ) came up with first-quarter 2016 earnings per share of $0.45 that missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.61. Adjusted EPS declined almost 32% year over year due to lower revenues and profits. Quarterly net revenue of $2.72 billion missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $2.88 billion and declined 9.8% year over year due to weak performance in Macau. LVS stock was down about 14.8% (as of May 5, 2016) since it reported earnings on April 20. Wynn Resorts Ltd. (NASDAQ: WYNN ) posted mixed first-quarter 2016 results. Adjusted earnings of $1.07 per share were 52.9% higher year over year and beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.83. Revenues of $997.7 million missed the consensus mark of $1.007 billion and slipped 8.7% year over year, owing to a 13.8% decline in Macau, partially made up by 0.7% rise in revenues in Las Vegas. WYNN resorts gained about 2% after hours of May 5, after reporting earnings. ETF Impact The impact of mixed earnings should be felt in the casino gaming ETF Market Vectors Gaming ETF (NYSEARCA: BJK ) as the trio has found a place in the top 10 holdings of the fund with a considerable share. Investors should note that the Zacks Industry Rank of the above-mentioned stocks is in the top 42%, at the time of writing. While WYNN has a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy), LVS and MGM has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) each. But BJK has a Zacks ETF Rank #1 (Strong Buy), though with a High risk outlook. For investors seeking to keep a watch on this ETF in the coming days, we have taken a closer look at the details of this fund: BJK in Focus The fund looks to track the Market Vectors Global Gaming Index and provides investors a direct exposure to the casino gaming market. The fund has so far attracted $17.8 million in assets with 44 holdings. The product is expensive as it charges 66 bps in fees per year. Both companies – Sands China ( OTCPK:SCHYY ) and Las Vegas Sands – have about 15% exposure in BJK. MGM Resorts International and MGM China ( OTCPK:MCHVY ) – together take about 7.6% of the fund. Wynn Resorts and Wynn Macau ( OTCPK:WYNMY ), together take about 4.2% of the fund. Original Post Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Superforecasting For Active Investors

By Sammy Suzuki In a fiercely competitive world, active managers are constantly looking for ways to advance their performance edge. One good place to focus on is how to become better forecasters. If just looking at averages, the active management industry has a spotty record. But some active investors manage to beat the market consistently, suggesting that they possess some degree of skill. If you can identify them or become one of them, the payoff is large. The question is, what separates skilled investors from unskilled ones? Many people will answer that question by pointing to credentials or other markers: the manager seems especially smart, acts more authoritatively than others, shows more conviction or appears on TV more frequently. The problem is that none of these factors is necessarily correlated with increased predictive capabilities. In fact, some of them have a mildly negative relationship to it. In a world engulfed in random noise, performance itself is a fairly unreliable measure of skill in the short run. So what, then, are the traits common to the most skillful investors? A Teachable Moment We have some thoughts on the matter, largely drawn from the insightful research conducted by Philip Tetlock, professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and co-author of Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction. The book is based on the findings from the Good Judgment Project, a multiyear study in which Tetlock and his colleagues asked thousands of crowdsourced participants to predict the likelihood of a slew of future political and economic events. As the book’s title suggests, “superforecasters” do, in fact, walk among us. Despite their lack of professional expertise, a small group of participants in the study significantly out-predicted both their fellow volunteers and teams of top professional researchers. And, over time, their advantage not only persisted, but grew. Most important, Tetlock found that good analytical judgment relies on a set of discrete approaches that can be taught and learned. With that in mind, we offer a framework for investors looking to improve. It’s About HOW You Think How forecasters think matters more than what they think, according to Tetlock’s research. In fact, how a person approaches a research question is the single biggest element distinguishing a great forecaster from a mediocre one. Predictive research is about focusing on the information that is most likely to raise the odds of being right: if you know x, your odds improve by y%. Superforecasters think in terms of probabilities; break complex questions down into smaller, more tractable components; separate the known from the unknowns and search for comparables to guide their view. Professional investors and research analysts gather reams of data to build their forecasting models, a lot of which has little proven predictive value. Our research shows, for example, that there is little correlation between a country’s GDP growth and how well its stock market performs. Good investment forecasting is akin to meditating in the middle of Times Square. It requires learning how to isolate the few relevant “signals” from a cacophony of irrelevant market “noise.” That’s not something most of us are taught how to do in our formal education. In areas such as math, science or engineering, the relationship between general laws and what you observe is much tighter. Stay Actively Open Minded In reality, the range of possible outcomes of any event is wider than most people can imagine. Outcomes usually look obvious after the fact, but they frequently surprise when they happen. Tetlock’s work suggests that a forecaster who considers many different theories and perspectives tends to be more accurate than a forecaster who subscribes to one grand idea or agenda. Being open minded also means accepting the (very real) possibility of overconfidence. Superforecasters also have a healthy appetite for information, a willingness to revisit and update their predictions as new evidence warrants and the ability to synthesize material from sources with very different outlooks on the world. Maintain Humility It takes a certain kind of person to have both the humility to accept that they may be overconfident in their assumptions and predictive powers and the conviction necessary to manage an investment portfolio. It also takes a certain type of person to learn from their mistakes without over-learning. The best forecasters were less interested in whether they were right or wrong than in why they were right or wrong. Using Tetlock’s words, superforecasters also tend to be in perpetual beta mode. Like software developers working on an untested app, these people rigorously analyze their past performances to figure out how to avoid repeating mistakes or over-interpreting successes. In the age of information overload, the active investor’s edge increasingly lies in knowing what information matters and how to process that information. If you can identify skill – whether you are looking to hire a portfolio manager or you are a portfolio manager aspiring to improve – we believe that this superforecasting framework can give you a better shot at beating the market. The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams. Sammy Suzuki, CFA – Portfolio Manager—Strategic Core Equities

One Size Fits All… If It’s Customized

Portfolio design comes in many flavors, but so do investors. Finding a sensible balance is job one in the pursuit of prudent financial advice. Yet for some folks the idea of keeping an open mind for customizing strategy to match an investor’s goals, risk tolerance and other factors reeks of treachery. There can only be one solution for everyone – all else is deceit. Or so some would have you believe. This biased worldview comes up a lot with the discussion of buy and hold, but the one-size-fits-all argument knows no bounds. The danger is that pre-emptively deciding how to manage assets for all investors is the equivalent of diagnosing illness and recommending treatment before meeting with the patient. Sound financial advice requires more nuance, of course, for two primary reasons: the future’s uncertain and the human species is afflicted with behavioral biases. In other words, a given investment strategy can be appropriate – or not – for different individuals. Consider the concept of buy and hold. By some accounts, it’s all you need to know. Stick your money in, say, the stock market and let the magic of time do the heavy lifting. Sensible? Perhaps. But it may be hazardous. The determining factor is the particulars of the investor for whom the advice is dispensed. Buy and hold – perhaps by focusing heavily if not exclusively on stocks via a handful of equity funds – may be eminently appropriate for a 25-year-old with a budding career, a saver’s mentality, and the behavioral discipline to focus on the long-run future. The same solution can be toxic, however for anyone with a time horizon of 10 years or less. Even for someone who’ll be investing for much longer, may run into trouble with buy and hold if he has a tendency to over-react to short-term events. In that case, buy and hold can be wildly inappropriate for an investor without the discipline to look through market crashes and bear markets. Ah, but that’s where a good financial advisor can help by keeping the client on the straight and narrow: Ignore the short-term volatility and stay focused on the long term. Fair enough, but it doesn’t always work. Some investors will bail at exactly the wrong time no matter how much hand-holding they receive. Deciding who’s vulnerable on that score can be tricky, but not impossible. Perhaps, then, a portfolio strategy with less risk – asset allocation – or the capacity to de-risk at times – some form of tactical – is more appropriate for certain individuals. The flip side of this equation is no less relevant. Forcing every client into a tactical asset allocation strategy simply because that’s your specialty (and/or it pays better for the advisor) is also misguided. Higher trading costs, taxable consequences and the inevitability of timing mistakes can and probably will take a bit out of total return over the long haul relative to buy and hold. The “price” of tactical can still be worthwhile for some folks, if the portfolio has a tamer risk profile. The point is that there’s no way to decide what’s appropriate without first understanding the client. Granted, a 25-year-old investor is more likely to benefit from buy and hold vs. a newly retired 65-year-old client. But there are exceptions and it’s essential to identify where those exceptions arise. The good news is that there’s an appropriate strategy for every client. The great strides in financial research and portfolio design capabilities via computers over the last several decades provide the raw material for building and maintaining portfolios that are suitable for any given client. Buy and hold may still be appropriate, but maybe not. The greatest strategy in the world is worthless if a client jump ships mid-way through the process. As such, the goal for managing money on behalf of individuals isn’t about identifying the strategy with the highest expected return or even the strongest risk-adjusted performance. Rather, the objective is to build a portfolio that’s likely to work for the client. That may or may not lead to a buy-and-hold strategy – or some variation thereof. Such talk is heresy in some corners. But matching portfolio design and management particulars to each client’s time horizon, goals, etc. – and behavioral traits – is the worst way to manage money… except when compared with the alternatives.