Tag Archives: netflix

Actionable Insights: What The FANG?

Do you know what FANG stands for? If you don’t, you should – it makes an impact on your investments in ways you might not realize. FANG stocks mask the fact that the overall tech sector is under pressure compared to other indexes. 12/10/2015 You might have started hearing the word “FANG” thrown around in recent months and have questions on what it means. Like many terms before it, such as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), FANG is a recently-coined term associated with Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN ), Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX ), and Google (NASDAQ: GOOG ). The performance of these stocks has been nothing short of impressive this year (avg. +87% return year-to-date), but what’s more important is the FANG’s impact on other investments, such as the NASDAQ ETF (NASDAQ: QQQ ). Though investors think they might be diversifying by owning ETFs, the FANG stocks make up about 20% of the ETF’s composition. When we include Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ), that number increases to 41%. So when you think about diversification, remember that over 40% of your investment is allocated to just six companies. This has been a pretty great issue to have this year, but it’s important to realize this before choosing your investments. More importantly, this heavy allocation into six companies skews what on face value looks like relatively great performance out of the NASDAQ this year: As you can see, the NASDAQ (less the top six stocks) has significantly underperformed the other major indexes. When you consider this index is weighted more towards growth/technology companies, and that mutual funds are beginning to write down private venture investments , its paints a much bleaker picture on tech’s ability to maintain its high multiples going forward. Additionally, as ETFs become an increasing larger portion of the market, the FANG stock may begin to move based on overall market buying/selling of indexes. Just something to keep an eye on….and now you know FANG. The Actionable Insight Take : With poor performance out of recent IPOs like Square (NYSE: SQ ), the write-downs of private investments in “unicorn” stocks, and general weak performance out of the NASDAQ this year, we are growing increasingly concerned about valuation in the tech sector. If the market were to start rotating into lower-risk stocks, many of the currently unprofitable “unicorns” would probably have a high likelihood of a sell-off. On the FANG front, we tend to prefer Google for its mix of growth and value, its profitability and strong balance sheet, and its opportunities to grow new, valuable businesses in the future (Google fiber, autonomous cars, expansion of YouTube, etc.). We commend Netflix for its transition into media production to offset the risk of rising content costs, but we fear the risk of miss-hits in production (something all producers eventually face). We think NFLX could take pricing here and there is ample room to grow internationally, but at its current price we think some of that is already priced in. Next week, I’ll be skiing in Utah, so stay on the lookout for my special skiing edition of Actionable Insights Last, as a shameless plug, it was announced this morning that my recent write-up on Ross Stores (NASDAQ: ROST ) came in 4th place in Seeking Alpha’s retail ideas contest . You can find the write-up here . Actionable Insights is a daily newsletter written by Shaun Currie, CFA, which aims to provide investors with quick, educational updates on market news with insights on possible investment opportunities. Periodically, Actionable Insights will also contribute longer investment ideas that the author produces for clients and the general public. Follow me to get notified when updates and articles are posted.

2 Screens To Avoid Bad Investments

Summary There’s no way to avoid all investments that end up performing poorly, but there are two screens that can avoid some of them: past price performance and hedging cost. We applied those two screens to a list of top investor picks three months ago, and the ones that passed both screens significantly outperformed the others. We elaborate on the two screens, and discuss why they work. We conclude with a suggestion to consider applying these screens to guru picks, and to consider diversifying or hedging to limit risk. A Bad Fall For Top Investor Picks In a late August article (“Best Q2 Picks From Top Investors”), Seeking Alpha premium contributor and hedge fund manager Chris DeMuth, Jr. highlighted what he felt were the best stocks top investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, and Seth Klarman (Klarman pictured below; image from DeMuth’s article) added or increased their weightings of in the second quarter. On the whole, these picks have performed poorly over the last three months. In hindsight, this is consistent with the narrowness of the current bull market, one dominated by the “FANGs”, Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN ), Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX ), and Google (NASDAQ: GOOG ), as John Authers noted in a recent Financial Times column. But what’s interesting is the divergence in performance between two groups of these stocks. The first group includes the guru picks that passed two screens to be included in a Portfolio Armor hedged portfolio, and the second group includes the guru picks that didn’t. One of those screens is simple enough you can run it without any specialized tools. We’ll detail both of the screens below, but first, here’s a look at how the two groups of guru picks have performed over the last three months. Guru Picks Portfolio Armor Included, 3-Month Returns: Advance Auto Parts (NYSE: AAP ), -14.43% Precision Castparts (NYSE: PCP ), +1.19% Cigna Corporation (NYSE: CI ), – 1.75% Danaher Corp (NYSE: DHR ), +10.83% Humana (NYSE: HUM ), -8.16% Perigo (NYSE: PRGO ), -16.2% Shire (NASDAQ: SHPG ), -8.5% Time Warner (NYSE: TWC ), -2% Average 3-month return: -4.88% Guru Picks Portfolio Armor Rejected, 3-Month Returns: SunEdison (NASDAQ: SEMI ), -32.06% SunEdison (NYSE: SUNE ), -71.15% Williams (NYSE: WMB ), -40.8% Baker Hughes (NYSE: BHI ), -6.83% Office Depot (NASDAQ: ODP ), -24.33% Altera (NASDAQ: ALTR ), +5.94% Icahn Enterprises (NASDAQ: IEP ), +0.54% Brookdale (NYSE: BKD ), -29.6% T-Mobile (NASDAQ: TMUS ), -6.47% Average 3-month return: -22.75% Screening Out The Worst-Performing Picks In an article published in early September (“Investing Alongside Buffett, Klarman, And Other Top Investors While Limiting Your Risk”), we entered each of the guru stock picks above into Portfolio Armor’s hedged portfolio construction tool. That tool works differently depending on whether you enter your own securities or not. If you don’t enter your own securities, the tool populates your portfolio with the securities with the highest potential returns, net of hedging costs, in its universe (its universe consists of every stock and exchange traded product with options traded on it in the U.S.). If you do enter securities, as we did with those guru picks, the tool performs two screens on the securities you enter before attempting to calculate potential returns for them. Screen #1: Most Recent 6-month Performance V. Long Term The first screen is one you can easily do yourself. The tool looks at how the ticker performed over the most recent six months and compares that to the average six month performance of the security over the long term (ten years, if a stock has been around that long; if not, it uses the long term returns of an industry competitor as a proxy; for exchange-traded products it uses since-inception returns if it hasn’t been around for ten years). The tool will reject any security with a negative return over the last six months, unless the average six month return of the security over the long term is greater than the absolute value of the most recent six months return. To illustrate this, let’s look at one of the guru picks that failed this screen, SunEdison . Below is a chart, via Yahoo, showing the performance of SUNE over the 6 months prior to when Portfolio Armor rejected it for inclusion in that September hedged portfolio: (click to enlarge) SUNE was down 48% over the six months prior to early September. The only way it would have made it past this screen is if its average 6-month performance over the last 10 years was greater than 48%, and, as you might guess, that wasn’t the case, so SUNE failed the first screen. Screen #2: Hedging Cost Since SUNE failed the first screen, it was eliminated. An example of a stock that passed the first screen, but failed the second, was Williams . WMB was down 3.25% over the most recent six month period as of early September, but its average 6 month performance over the previous 10 years was 4.81%, so it passed the first screen. But it was too expensive to hedge against a greater-than-9% decline over the next six months using an optimal static hedge, so it was rejected. We explained how to find optimal hedges in a previous article , if you’re willing to do the work manually, or you could use an automated tool such as our hedging app . Why These Two Screens Work Although these two screens don’t eliminate all poor-performers, they work to eliminate some of the worst performers. They both employ what New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki termed the wisdom of crowds : Large groups of people are “smarter” than an elite few, no matter how brilliant — better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future. The large group of people in screen #1 is the stock market, and the large group of people in screen #2 is the option market; the elite few are the top investors who picked the stocks. Conclusion If you’re going to buy gurus’ stock picks, consider buying ones that pass these two screens. And since these screens don’t eliminate all poor-performers, consider limiting your stock-specific risk by diversifying or hedging.

Stay Out Of The Junkyard: Low-Priced Stocks Are Hazardous To Your (Financial) Health

My last post generated a fair amount of negative feedback on my Yahoo Finance page and on Twitter . There’s nothing quite like waking up in the morning and being called an idiot (and worse) by all sorts of strangers on the internet. I understand that people have strong feelings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but I have to say, the vitriol of the comments took me by surprise. Setting aside whether it was fair (or legal) for the government to change the bailout terms for Fannie and Freddie, my main point in writing about the two giant GSEs seemed rather straightforward: the low-priced stocks and preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are extremely risky investments. If Washington formally nationalizes these companies (or does so informally, as it seems to be doing right now), there is a good chance that their stocks will go to zero. Sure, the big hedge funds and their armadas of lawyers might prevail in court and win the return of the companies’ dividends to shareholders. But even if that happens, it will probably take years. As I wrote in the last line of the post, “There are easier ways to make money.” The broader lesson of the GSEs for both retail and professional investors can be stated in four words: What do I mean by junk stocks? There are all sorts of ways to answer that question. Usually, junk stocks are defined as companies with shrinking revenues, outsized debt loads and negative cash flows. But there’s an easy way to spot junk stocks without digging through financial disclosures: if a stock is below five bucks, it is more than likely a troubled mess not worth investing in. As I write in my book Dead Companies Walking , the vast majority of low-single digit stocks in the market are over – not under- priced. Almost all of them have been relegated to the stock market pick-n-pull for one (or more) of three reasons: a bad business, a bad management team, or a bad balance sheet. It’s not uncommon for companies with sub-$5 stock prices to suffer from all three of these maladies. Yet, many investors cannot resist the temptation to buy these jalopies, hoping for a turnaround that almost never happens. Like vintage cars, a small percentage of cast-off stocks do defy the (very long) odds and regain their former glory. But here’s the thing pick-n-pull investors fail to understand: those stocks are even better buys at $8 or $10 than they were at $2 or $4. Why? Because improving fundamentals have taken hold by then, and the wider market has taken notice. Good news spreads quickly, and healthy, wealthy, and popular companies tend to get healthier, wealthier, and more popular as cash flows fatten and more investors pile in. Consider how brutally top-heavy the markets have been this year. At the end of July, I (lightly) cautioned investors to be wary of the high-flying FANG quartet – Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN ), Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX ), and Google ( GOOG , GOOGL ) – saying that any correction in the tech sector could also drag these stocks down to earth again. So much for market forecasting. Shortly after I wrote that post, the market did go through a correction. The FANGs fell along with everyone else, but they’ve all charged to new highs since then. If you add the other two largest tech companies (Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ) and Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL )) to the FANGs, these six behemoths now comprise 12 percent of the S&P 500’s $18.5 trillion total market capitalization, and have accounted for just about all of the index’s gains this year. If these half dozen names were flat, not up, the S&P would be down 1.5 percent year to date instead of up 1 percent. More importantly from an investment standpoint, the likelihood that any of them will go broke is exactly nil. They all have rapid revenue growth, strong balance sheets, capable Boards and highly educated employees. Those attributes are much harder to find at troubled companies with sub-$5 stock prices. The top-heaviness of the current market might be extreme, but it isn’t new. Historically, a minority of stocks have always outperformed the overall market over any lengthy time period. All the major indexes (minus the Dow) are market capitalization weighted. That means a few mega-cap winners, like Google or Amazon, can (and often do) offset the stock price declines at dozens, or even hundreds, of smaller companies. Though I usually don’t buy the stocks of large, widely analyzed businesses, my own returns as a fund manager bear this out. My best performance has occurred when most of my shorts are below $10 (and hopefully heading toward zero) and my longs are pricier. In years where junk outperforms value (like 2003 and 2009), I tend to underperform. A few years back, Blackstar Funds analyzed the returns of the Russell 3000 between 1983 and 2007. Even for a cynic like me, the bearish results were shocking. Of the 8000+ stocks that were either in the Russell 3000 originally or that entered it at some point during the study period (usually via an IPO), 39 percent produced a negative lifetime total return – with 19 percent losing over 75 percent. Only 1 in 5 stocks produced a 300 percent or greater return. And yet, over that same time period, the Russell 3000 gained over 1000 percent – all because a small handful of large winners crushed the median stock’s advance. In life and in the stock market, the rich tend to get richer. For everyone else, it’s a different story. Original Post