Tag Archives: opinion

Stocks And Gold: A New Balanced Portfolio

High valuations and low rates make it necessary to build balanced portfolios. Gold can be a good diversifier for US stocks. Trend following approaches can add value. Leonardo Da Vinci is credited with stating that “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Daniel Khaneman added credence to Da Vinci’s belief in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow . Khaneman pointed out that “complexity may work in the odd case, but more often than not it reduces validity.” In essence, Khaneman made the case that simpler is in fact better. The same is most likely true for investing. Despite the fact that our financial system is filled with complex financial products, and often chaotic feedback mechanisms, simple investment strategies tend to work better over the long run. For example, over the last decade, an investor would have been better served to buy a low cost S&P 500 index fund over investing in active managers. Over 80 percent of the active managers failed to outperform their respective benchmarks over that period. This is despite their large research teams, sophisticated investment strategies, and years of training. The simple process of buying an index fund and holding it over the ten year period would have been superior. Index funds are great, but buy and hold is hardly the optimal investment strategy. The macroeconomic environment, valuations, and the prevailing price trends should be considered. Simple, rules-based approaches can be used to adequately account for dynamic markets. The article, Value and Momentum: A Beautiful Combination , is a great example of using two simple, yet opposed systems, to formulate a sound overall investment methodology. The purpose of this paper is to explore a new twist on a balanced approach to investing through a simple system. Courtesy of Doug Short US stocks are severely overvalued by most measures that demonstrate historical accuracy. Chart 1 gives a pretty good summary of the overvalued state of stocks using several respected measures of market valuation. Thus, long-term investors should diversify their investment in the US equities market with other asset classes. The first thought that normally comes to mind is to diversify in different asset classes of equity. Many value investors would point to the undervalued emerging and international stocks suggesting that they may offer better future returns than the US stock market. The problem with this idea is that global stocks tend to be highly correlated with US markets during periods of stress. During the summer months of 2008, most stock market asset classes fell together. Correlations between different classes of equity moved towards one, signifying a lack of diversification and an increase in portfolio risk. Bonds are also typically referenced as a good diversifier when paired with equity investments. This is normally the case as bonds have a tendency to dampen the volatility of the overall portfolio over time. The problem with diversifying into bonds in a long-term portfolio is the fact that interest rates are historically low and we are thirty years into a bond bull market. At some point, in the next twenty years, one would expect interest rates to be higher than the current rates. That expectation could lead to poor returns for bonds, especially if all the monetary stimulus turns around to haunt us with inflation. Consequently, it made sense to us to scour other asset classes with historically low correlations to stocks but with the ability to protect a portfolio against inflation or rapidly rising interest rates. With the backdrop of accommodative central banks, record debt levels in developed nations, slow growth, and deflationary conditions, gold became the asset class of choice. Partly for the controversy, as investors hate and love the yellow metal. Our view of gold is primarily price related as we are quantitative investment managers. However, from a fundamental perspective, gold makes a lot of sense as a portfolio hedge. It is a currency in its basic form and hedges against the fall of other global currencies. Therefore, we decided to test out a new balanced investment approach where we diversified US stocks with gold. Since we do not believe that volatility is risk, we did not determine our weightings to stocks and gold through volatility targeting or risk budgeting approach. Living up to our heretic ways, we instead equally weighted the two asset classes and ran a comparison versus the S&P 500 from 1972 through 2014. The hypothetical results were as follows: (click to enlarge) Chart 2: Stocks vs. Stocks & Gold Clint Sorenson, CFA, CMT Data Courtesy of NYU Stern School of Business, Global Financial Data, Morningstar1 The two strategies did a good job growing the initial investment over the time period. Although, the drawdown was much less for the portfolio of 50 percent stocks and 50 percent gold. The S&P 500 fell more than 55 percent during the time period referenced above. The 50 percent stock and 50 percent gold portfolio fell a maximum of 31 percent. Growth was similar between the two strategies. $1 million invested in 1972 would have become over $72 million in the S&P 500 through 2014. The same amount put into the balanced portfolio would have turned into almost $59 million. Obviously, the S&P 500 would have been the overall winner in a competition of growth over this period of time. We decided to apply a simple trend following method to the balanced portfolio for further comparison. The rules are as follows: Measure each asset class (US Stocks and Gold) against their 8 month simple moving averages If the closing monthly price is above the moving average, the portion of the portfolio would be invested in the asset class (Buy Signal) If the closing monthly price is below the moving average then the portion of the portfolio would be invested in the 10 year US Treasury (Sell Signal) The following table embodies all possible portfolio allocations: Allocation Range Stocks (NYSEARCA: SPY ) 0-50% Gold (NYSEARCA: GLD ) 0-50% US Ten Year Treasury (NYSEARCA: IEF ) 0-100% Applying the simple buy and sell discipline to the balanced portfolio makes all the difference historically. Since 1972 $1 million invested in the trend following approach grows to over $286 million. This is significantly more than the S&P 500 or the static 50/50 (Stock/Gold) portfolio. Furthermore, the growth comes on the back of reduced drawdown. The maximum drawdown of the trend following portfolio is only slightly more than 18 percent. Applying the simple trend filter allows for enhanced return and reduced risk. Historically, it has made sense to rent bonds during periods where stocks and gold have entered negative trends. (click to enlarge) Chart 3: Trend approach to Gold and Stock portfolio Clint Sorenson, CFA, CMT Data Courtesy of NYU Stern School of Business, Global Financial Data, Morningstar2 It is our opinion that we are in the third equity market bubble in the past fifteen years. Historically high valuations, large amounts of public and private debt, unprecedented monetary support, and negative real interest rates have challenged the common approaches to portfolio construction. We hope we have demonstrated a way to simplify diversification using a portfolio of stocks and gold. A sound investment approach does not have to be complicated to generate attractive results. 1. For the 50/50 strategy of Stocks and Gold, we used index data through 2005 and then ETF data from 2006 through 2014. We used SPY to replicate the S&P 500 and GLD to replicate gold. 2. For the trend following strategy of Stocks and Gold, we used index data through 2005 and then ETF data from 2006 through 2014. We used SPY to replicate the S&P 500, GLD to replicate gold, and IEF to replicate the 10 year Treasury bond.

EVV And EVG: 2 More Eaton Vance Funds That Sound Alike, But Aren’t

Eaton Vance Limited Duration Income Fund sports a nearly 9.5% yield. Eaton Vance Short Duration Diversified Income Fund’s yield is around 8%. The risks involved favor the lower yield. Financial markets are in a state of flux right now. With the Federal Reserve continuing to keep interest rates at low levels, some might argue that there’s no need to worry. However, the Fed is keeping rates low because of weak global growth — certainly not a good thing. And how long can rates stay this low before unintended consequences start to rear their ugly heads? If you are the least bit concerned about the markets and interest rates Eaton Vance Limited Duration Income Fund (NYSEMKT: EVV ) and Eaton Vance Short Duration Diversified Income Fund (NYSE: EVG ) both sound like good places to hide in a storm. But that’s worth a closer look… Birds of a feather? EVV and EVG both share a similar mandate, providing investors with a high-level of current income. Capital appreciation is a secondary consideration for each. In addition, both closed-end funds, or CEFs, try to provide broad exposure to the fixed income markets while limiting interest rate risk. EVV’s duration is targeted to be between two and five years, while EVG is a little more conservative in that its duration is expected to be no more than three years. Although that’s a difference, it’s not exactly a huge one. At the end of the second quarter, EVV’s duration was around 3.2 years and EVG’s was around 2.1 years. Both funds, meanwhile, make use of leverage, something that can increase gains in good times but exacerbates losses in bad times. EVV and EVG even share five of six managers (EVV has six people steering the boat, EVG only five). One big difference between the pair is size. EVV has more than six times the assets of EVG, which helps explain why there’s an extra hand at the wheel. But this isn’t the only difference you’ll want to be aware of. The big obvious one for most investors will be the distribution yield. EVV’s yield is around 9.4%, roughly 17% higher than EVG’s 8%. That said, the yields are based on NAV at both funds, which are trading at over 10% discounts and are more reasonable, with EVV’s NAV yield at around 8.1% and EVG’s NAV yield of just about 7%. Based on this quick look, you might just go for the higher yield from the larger fund. But don’t jump just yet. A quick look at the engine Although duration is very important in the bond world, since it gives you an idea of the impact that interest rate changes will have on your return, it isn’t the only factor to watch for. (The longer the duration, the more impact interest rate changes will have.) Another important one is credit quality. While short durations can help to limit the risk of lower quality debt, since it will get paid off relatively quickly, it doesn’t remove the risk. And with investor concern high, low-quality debt has been taking a big hit. Perhaps rightly so. And that’s an important comparison point at EVV and EVG. At the end of the second quarter, EVV’s portfolio was made up of about 30% investment grade debt. So 70% of what it owns could be characterized as high-yield or “junk.” To be fair, BB, the highest-quality high-yield debt, makes up about 30% of that, but it still has heavy exposure to risky borrowers. EVG, on the other hand, had about half of its portfolio in investment grade issuers. There was another 25% or so in BB issuers. Of the two, EVG’s exposure to credit risk is much less than its sibling’s. That helps account for the lower yield, too, since higher-quality bonds tend to pay less interest than lower-quality fare. For investors concerned about a coming market storm, then, EVG appears to the less risky option. True, it has a lower yield, but that might be a worthwhile trade-off if you were looking at EVV and EVG to find a “safe” short-duration CEF bond fund to hide in. That said, there are some other factors to consider, too. For example, EVG’s portfolio is about two-thirds U.S. debt. EVV’s U.S. exposure is higher at around 85%. You could look at this difference in one of two ways. On the one hand, more diversification is better. On the other, sticking close to home may prove to be a more astute choice if the U.S. turns out to be the cleanest dirty shirt if, in my opinion when, the markets hit more turbulence. Then there’s the issue of long-term performance. Over the trailing 10 years through September, EVV’s annualized NAV return, which includes reinvested distributions, was about 6.4%. EVG’s annualized return over that span was about 5%. But that was then, and this is now. For example, over the trailing six months through September, EVG’s NAV loss was around 1.7% and EVV’s loss was nearly 3%. In September alone, EVV lost nearly 2% of its net asset value. EVG fell about 0.5% in September. So it looks like EVG has the edge when risk starts to matter, but EVV’s risk taking has paid off over the longer term. That, of course, is the big trade-off in investing: Risk vs. reward. Right now, I’d err on the side of caution and give EVG the edge if you are watching this pair. That said, if you buy EVG, you might want to keep an eye on EVV for a time when the skies are a little more clear.

The Generation Portfolio: Target

Summary The quarter’s first full earnings week treated the Generation Portfolio kindly with the exception of Wal-Mart, whose unexpectedly dismal report blew a hole in the entire retail space. I took the sympathy weakness in big box retailers to add some Target Corporation shares, given that it is a recovery play whose situation is unrelated to Wal-Mart’s issues. Looking ahead, the Fed appears to be on hold for the time being, which is affecting the REIT and banking sectors. Background This is a weekly column that I write about an account that I manage for others, which I call the Generation Portfolio . I also discuss the current trading environment, my general investing philosophy, and any other ideas that seem relevant. Last week , for instance, I threw out some ideas about the herd-like mentality that has taken over the market due to the growth in index funds . To summarize that discussion, I have nothing against index funds in theory, and in fact own a few myself . In practice, though, the mass popularity of index funds tends to create distortions in the market. They are not quite the panacea that many would dearly love to believe they are, though they serve many investors well. The Generation Portfolio is built of stocks, not funds, because I find stocks to be easier to analyze and better suited to my cash flow objectives. So far, that strategy has worked as intended. The Importance of Cash Flow Regarding my income objectives, I have written about my own views of the importance of cash flow before . My theory is that a portfolio should be run like a business, with the cash that it generates reinvested into the enterprise whenever possible after you take out whatever expenses you need to cover. Thus, it is essential for a portfolio to generate enough cash flow to fund continuing operations – which, in the context of a portfolio, means the addition of new sources of cash flow which will keep the business thriving. It is a variation on the “buy low, sell high” mantra. The objective, in fact, is not to buy low and sell high, though of course that’s always preferable. I think that confuses some people, as not having as your objective the sale of what you buy at a higher price seems vaguely un-American or something. So, let me explain what I mean by that. The “buy low, sell high” objective is for speculators, or to use another word that annoys some people, “gamblers.” Nothing wrong with gambling, and life itself is a gamble. Some people are very good gamblers, and everyone has their own talents. However, for most people, you need to arrange matters to give you better table odds than they typically give you in Vegas (or the market) if you want to succeed at investing. My own view is that if you speculate enough and don’t have a good dollop of luck or some edge, you will speculate all your money away eventually. I’ve heard enough stories from people who have blown out accounts to reinforce that view. The speculator table is tilted against you because powerful, well-funded market interests collectively have more of whatever it is that you, the individual investor, can ever bring to the table – knowledge, brains, experience, capitalization, research tools, anything that makes a difference. They can outlast you, they have research and algorithms you’ve never heard of, and they can react faster than you. You may beat them sometimes because everything in the market is about probabilities, and even the biggest investment firms can’t control those. Those victories, though, just encourage you to continue onward until you aren’t quite so lucky. The odds are always in the house’s favor, though by a slim margin. Those with the odds in their favor are the ones with the fancy office buildings and slick marketing tactics. Some folks just learn that too late, or deny it forever. So, instead, if you want to win, the objective (as I see it) for the core of a prudent portfolio (there is always room for some fun speculation) is not to buy low and sell high, because that game is for likely losers. As the classic poker saying (repeated by Warren Buffett) goes, “If you don’t know who the patsy at the table is, it’s you.” Instead, my objective is to buy growing, dependable, and in other words quality cash flow cheap and then keep it so long as it remains quality. If you do that, the “selling high” part will take care of itself. And, best of all, you may not need to sell at all. However, you will have to ride out the shifting currents and forget about current prices except in a grand strategic fashion. That’s tough to do. There are many ways to build cash flow, and some investors just don’t like dividends. Those folks usually have studies from this, that or the other place to back up the theory that it is better to sell part of your portfolio to generate cash flow rather than rely on dividends for it. It’s a valid strategy, though I could spin out all sorts of issues with it. Whatever works for you is terrific. My preference is to generate cash flow by collecting dividends from Quality Stocks . Dividends are automatic and don’t require any transactions or thought, and the less thought I have to devote to a mundane task, the better. If you have sufficient funds to diversify across and even within sectors, that also is a good strategy to put into practice to minimize risk. Thus, the Generation Portfolio pursues an income strategy across companies and sectors that is designed to generate reliable and growing cash flow and minimize damage from random stock disasters. “It is a market of stocks, not a stock market.” If you’ve been following the market long enough, you have seen someone go on one of the financial channels and grandly announce, “it is a market of stocks, not a stock market.” Broadly speaking, my interpretation is that people who say that mean to emphasize that stock picking is still important. I tend to agree, because someone has to choose among and between stocks. Plus, there are so many index funds these days that advising someone to buy an index fund is pretty meaningless. If everyone simply bought the same index fund, there wouldn’t be much of a stock market left, and different index funds can have vastly different performance. If everyone buys different index funds, that creates the same type of performance differentials between them that individual stocks themselves offer. Ultimately, the whole rationale behind index funds collapses and you get a market of stocks, um, funds again. As the monastery leader in James Hilton’s “Shangri La” said, “moderation in all things.” This week was a good example of the need for such moderation. The herd was moving one way – the broader market was up – but parts of the herd went the other way (down). The biggest part heading lower was being led by a mad cow, and if you had all your calves in that particular group, your family wound up in the prickly bushes. Ultimately, the misled followers will rejoin the main herd, but it’s a painful experience until they do. I think you’ll figure out what I mean by all that by reading on. The Week That Was The market dipped slightly in the middle of the week. Ultimately, though, it surged higher despite some earnings weakness. The move higher was likely due to growing consensus that the Fed will not raise interest rates in the current weak economic environment. The market now has been up for three straight weeks, but the losses of August and September have not been fully recovered. The Nasdaq is up 3.2% this year, but the Dow is down 3.4%, and the S&P 500 is down 1.3%. Transactions I prefer to buy on weakness and the overall market didn’t provide much of that this past week. I did pick up some Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT ) due to its price decline following a terrible Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT ) earnings report. Target is recovering from its Canadian discontinued business charges, but its core operations appear sound. Generation Portfolio to Date Below are the transactions to date in the Generation Portfolio. The Generation Portfolio as of 17 October 2015 Stock Purchase Date Purchase Price Latest Price Change Since Purchase WFC 8/25/2015 $ 51.75 $ 52.88 2.18% DIS 8/25/2015 $ 98.75 $108.16 3.26% BMY 8/25/2015 $ 59.75 $ 64.49 7.93% MFA 8/25/2015 $ 7.05 $ 7.03 0.28% OHI 8/31/2015 $ 33.95 $ 36.28 6.86% CVX 9/02/2015 $ 77.90 $ 91.20 17.19% PG 9/03/2015 $ 69.95 $ 74.90 7.08% CYS 9/04/2015 $ 7.68 $ 7.93 3.26% KO 9/09/2015 $ 38.50 $ 42.02 9.14% MPW 9/10/2015 $ 10.89 $ 11.73 7.71% WMT 9/10/2015 $ 64.40 $ 58.78 (8.56%) VTR 9/10/2015 $ 52.80 57.09 7.90% KMI 9/11/2015 $ 29.95 $ 32.43 7.55% WPC 9/14/2015 $ 56.75 $ 61.46 8.30% T 9/17/2015 $ 32.50 33.78 4.09% VZ 9/17/2015 $ 44.95 44.80 (0.56%) MMM 9/18/2015 $139.90 $148.66 6.29% JPM 9/22/2015 $ 60.89 $ 62.43 2.87% PX 9/23/2015 $101.30 $109.43 8.03% VER 9/25/2015 $ 7.87 $ 8.34 5.97% WMB 9/28/2015 $ 39.48 $ 42.28 7.09% MAIN 9/28/2015 $ 27.47 $ 29.32 6.73% PFE 9/28/2015 $ 32.69 $ 34.41 5.26% TGT 10/16/2015 $ 75.15 $ 75.05 (0.13%) Latest prices and percentages are those supplied by the broker, TD Ameritrade, as of the close on 16 October 2015. A large legacy position in Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F ) and some other small legacy positions are omitted. There currently are 21 positive positions and three negative positions in the Generation Portfolio (I go strictly by the broker’s calculations of gain and loss, as they know best). According to a spreadsheet that I maintain, the Generation Portfolio overall currently is up between 5-6%, just as it was last week. That does not include dividends received to date, and some of the positions may have gone ex-dividend but not yet paid the distributions. Dividends One of the aims of the Generation Portfolio is to generate dividends, hence the name. Some will hit the account this week, but there was no change from last week. Dividends Received To Date Stock Date Received Type VTR 9/30/2015 Ordinary KO 10/01/2015 Qualified CYS 10/14/2015 Ordinary VER 10/15/2015 Ordinary MPW 10/15/2015 Ordinary WPC 10/15/2015 Qualified For now, at least, I am receiving the dividends in cash and will use them opportunistically as they accumulate. Analysis of Holdings While there were many earnings reports delivered during the week, the only one that really rocked the establishment was Wal-Mart’s on Wednesday. In some ways, that one should have been the most foreseeable, but it took everyone by surprise. Wal-Mart is the country’s largest private employer , and giving even a fraction of its workforce a raise will always have consequences for its bottom line. Those consequences did show up in its lowered guidance for the next few fiscal years. Wal-Mart gave no updates to its guidance before earnings to suggest this, which puzzled some analysts. Wal-Mart is the best possible example of why I keep individual positions relatively small and diversify. Since Wal-Mart dragged the entire big box retail sector lower, I decided to take advantage of the lower prices and add some Target. It may not have been at an ideal price, but Target’s issues are completely different than Wal-Mart’s. I had to ignore headlines such as “Wal-Mart’s Disappointing Sales And Earnings Forecasts Spell Doom For The Industry,” but someone has to provide goods to communities across the country. I wrote up an article on my reasons for adding Target here . Aside from Wal-Mart, my personal biggest surprise of the week was how well oil/gas energy stocks held up after their bonanza performance a week ago. Just goes to show how oversold the entire sector was. The REITs also are moving higher, which is gratifying. I’ve spent the past year studying them, and they appear to have stabilized for now. The banks had some difficult moments during the week after Generation Portfolio stock JPMorgan Chase delivered a sketchy earnings report . As I have written elsewhere, my view is that REITs and banks will tend to move in opposite directions . Bank weakness was in part due to the growing belief that the Fed will remain on hold at least until next year; banks want higher interest rates to increase their spreads. However, another factor behind their stability was simply that banks were already oversold and haven’t really recovered like some other sectors since the August sell-off. General Discussion This is the section where I basically just ramble on about what I am seeing in the investing world that might affect my investments. I don’t expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with my perspective, but it is how I see things right now. There is growing saber rattling in the world. Events in Syria are in flux, Putin is on the loose, North Korea is making its usual noises. Defense stocks have been showing some life recently. That also, in my opinion, is why oil stocks have recovered a little ground despite the continuing supply/demand situation; good sectors to be in if things get worse. The key to the next Fed move in my view lies in the next two jobs reports. If those reports are strong, the Fed may gather up its courage and raise rates. In my humble opinion, that would be the wrong move, but they typically don’t ask me. However, I don’t expect strong reports and don’t expect the Fed to raise rates. Taking a more strategic perspective, in my opinion, the next Fed move is completely up in the air now. Everyone assumes that the Fed will raise rates. However, the market has forced treasury yields lower recently, not higher. That is not a good environment for the Fed to raise rates, because they would be fighting the market. That can lead to an inverted yield curve, as in 2004-2006, which can be a precursor to a recession – as in 2004-2006. (click to enlarge) As the chart shows, the 10-year Treasury bond yield has fallen recently. It currently sits at 2.04%. Not only is it down from the heights of the summer, but it is even down slightly from its 2.06% rate at the end of the third quarter just a few weeks ago. I can’t tell you how many times over the past year someone has said to me with great authority that rates are headed higher, and soon. The simple fact is that, at least so far, they’re not trending higher unless you cherry-pick dates. Whenever I see someone state with great confidence that the Fed’s next move must be to raise rates, because everyone says that and we are all supposedly waiting in great trepidation of the great event, I like to pose a simple question: what if the economy weakens further? What does the Fed do then? Raising rates in the teeth of a weakening economy or, knock on wood, a recession would be foolhardy. It’s simply unrealistic at the moment. If the economy does weaken for whatever reason, the Fed doesn’t have a lot of tools left to fulfill its dual mandate of stable prices and full employment. It does have one that it could always resort to again that nobody seems to expect: another round of quantitative easing. Since nobody is talking about it, it can’t happen – right? We shall see. Returning to energy stocks again, I find it amusing that now some folks are starting to question the viability of the entire solar sector. This is one of those hot-button cult areas that invites negative comments whenever I go near it, but I like to provide alternate viewpoints and welcome them in comments. Solar has its place, but it is not quite the end-times panacea its proponents wish. Back in 2014, when I wrote my positive article about Hawaiian Electric – shortly before it rose about 50%, that is – people were predicting the doom of the entire utility sector and lambasting me for questioning the inevitable hegemony of solar and the temerity to recommend a dinosaur utility in a Mesozoic-era industry. Now, strangely enough due to events in Hawaii , that wheel has turned. Go figure. Actionable Ideas l have been watching defense stocks such as LMT and RTN closely, and would add one on a buying opportunity. I also have a couple of more high quality REITs on the radar screen, there still are some good values in the sector. The healthcare sector also still has some opportunities, though the Generation Portfolio has a couple in there already. Still, I’m not averse to over-weighting a defensive sector that is undervalued. I am watching a few other stocks like Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON ), which sold off despite a fairly decent earnings report, and a few other big names. So far, earnings reports for the third quarter have been a touch weak, which fortunately were somewhat expected . The market can handle anything, it just doesn’t like unnecessary surprises (Wal-Mart). We’ll see how the coming week’s earnings go, led by IBM (NYSE: IBM ), Google’s parent Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG ), Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ), Boeing (NYSE: BA ), GM (NYSE: GM ) and Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ). Of particular interest to the Generation Portfolio will be: Verizon Communications on Tuesday before the open; Coca-Cola Company on Wednesday before the open; CYS Investments, Inc. after the close on Wednesday; 3M Company on Thursday before the open; and Procter & Gamble Co. and Ventas, Inc. before the open on Friday. Conclusion It was an upbeat week for the market despite some weak earnings reports from industry bellwethers. A dismal earnings report from Wal-Mart sent it sharply lower and induced sympathy selling in other big box retails. I took the weakness as an opportunity to add some Target stock $10 below its very recent price. Looking ahead, the Fed appears to be on hold for now, which should give some strength to interest-sensitive sectors such as REITs. Overall, the Generation Portfolio had another good week despite the Wal-Mart disaster, and dividends are starting to accumulate.