Tag Archives: time

The Sweet Spot Of Zero Leverage Equity?

Global economic momentum is modest at best, equities and bonds are overvalued, and while allocating your funds entirely to gold, cash and shorts is enticing, it isn’t possible for the majority of money managers. What are investors to do then? The ranking of creditors and equity in the capital structure suggest that high-grade corporate bonds – and sovereigns – is the optimal allocation. When the going gets tough, the equity is wiped out, but as creditor, you are at least assured a recovery on your investment – even if it may be a slim one. This time could be different, however. As an alternative, I propose equities with zero leverage. There aren’t many around, and those that do remain unlevered are looked upon with suspicion by the market. After all, if the CFO hasn’t jumped on the bandwagon and issued debt to finance dividends and buybacks, she must be an idiot. But if you believe – as I do – that corporate bonds is the new bubble, being overweight equities with no leverage isn’t a bad idea. These securities won’t be immune to a crisis, but they offer two key advantages. Firstly, they likely will decline less than their overlevered brethren, and the risk of a bankruptcy is smaller. If a repeat of 2008 really beckons, capital preservation may turn out to be the key metric of survival, no matter the drawdown. Secondly, buying equities with zero, or very low, leverage is also a free option. If we are wrong, and the debt finance buyback and dividend party goes on, a portfolio of equities with zero leverage eventually will join the party too. In all likelihood, that means excess returns for your stocks. Once leverage has increased, you can sell and go looking for another batch of firms with no leverage, primed to lever their balance sheet to hand out money to shareholders. We concede that this latter rationale partly is a contradiction. But we would rather buy firms with a clean balance sheet than the alternative of buying equities that have already maxed out their potential for debt-financed shareholder gifts. Confusing charts; no directional clarity Meanwhile, looking at the macro, strategy and technical charts has left me confused – a bit like Macro Man , I suppose. Macroeconomic leading indicators have stabilised based on the most recent data. The year-over-year rate in the U.S. and EZ headline indices have climbed marginally, and have risen strongly in China. In Japan, however, the message from the headline index is grim. Global money supply growth has turned up further, helped by the U.S. and China. It is particularly encouraging to see that M1 growth has accelerated slightly in the U.S. On the contrary, my short-term charts of the market are sending a very unclear message. In the U.S. put-call ratios point to further upside despite the recent rally, while the advance-decline ratio continues to roll over. My equity valuation scores point to a slow grind higher in coming months, before a sell-off takes over towards the end of the summer. On sovereign bonds I remain bearish.

The Jury’s Still Split On The Value Of Activist Investing

Activist investing continues to be a topic of great debate in the financial world. One of the main issues that drives the controversy is whether activist investors help or hinder the market. Are they a force for good that keeps management and boards honest? Or are they simply quick buck artists intent on creating short-term value at the expense of building long-term sustainable companies? With these questions in mind, we asked CFA Institute Financial NewsBrief readers the following: “Is activist investing helpful, harmful, or a short-term nuisance?” As you might expect, opinions were split almost right down the middle. Is activist investing helpful, harmful, or a short-term nuisance? Click to enlarge Nearly half (48%) of the 538 respondents felt that activist investors are good for the system and improve the quality of the firms they invest in. Just over half of those surveyed, however, offered a less sanguine view of activist investing, split between those who feel activist investors are harmful to the system and are often motivated by short-term profit at the expense of long-term investors (34%), and those who say activist investors are a short-term nuisance and have little long-term effect on a company’s performance (18%). So what is the answer? Is activist investing a problem or not? As typical humans with short attention spans, we demand an easy answer! Unfortunately, as with most questions of this sort, the answer is typically yes and no, depending on your perspective. By its very nature, shareowner activism does often seek to return cash to shareowners in some form in a relatively short time frame. But activists rarely pursue corporate prey that has been executing consistently on a proven strategy for years. Activists tend to target companies that have lost their way in one way or another. There is also a definitional problem with short-termism. The markets work because someone is willing to buy or sell in the short term, often with an unknown time frame. If an investor feels that the full value of their investment is reached in three years, three months, or even three minutes, we do not begrudge them the right to sell. Activism has increased in recent years because it is believed to be a profitable strategy. It will likely decline as a strategy when and if there is less low hanging fruit — when there are fewer poorly run companies or firms with poor strategies. If management and boards up their games, their companies will not look so attractive to activists. Corporate boards also have reasonable allies in the battle against those activists motivated by short-term considerations: long-term investors. Long-term investors are typically institutional investors and generally do not have the option of selling the companies they own, so they can be receptive to a strong argument from an activist looking to drive value. It is therefore incumbent upon management and boards to: Have a sound long-term strategy. Tie variable compensation to the execution of that long-term strategy. Foster a dialogue and ongoing relationships with long-term investors. By engaging with these investors consistently and effectively, companies earn their trust. Then, if an activist comes to their door, they have a more receptive investor ear in the contest of ideas that plays out in the media and corporate boardrooms.

‘Go For Growth’ Still A Sound Strategy In Today’s Market

Stocks perceived as mitigating the effects of market volatility were popular among investors in the first quarter. Big swings in equity markets drove a flight to quality that benefitted dividend-paying sectors such as Utilities and Telecommunication Services (which were the two best-performing sectors in both ACWI and the Russell 3000). We largely have avoided those sectors due to their elevated valuations and the fact that we don’t believe they offer the growth possibilities that are necessary to generate long-term returns. While some high-profile growth stocks trade at triple-digit P/E valuations today, the reality is that the vast majority of growth stocks do not, and we do not believe it is worthwhile to examine what is happening with the growth story. The case for growth stocks in a low-growth world is relatively straightforward. All else being equal, companies that are capable of delivering above-average growth in a low-growth world should be rewarded by investors over time. However, in investing, all else is rarely equal. A high-growth stock at an unsustainably high valuation can be just as risky as – or even more risky than – a company that is in secular decline. 2015 was the best year since 2009 for major U.S. growth indices (e.g., Russell 1000 Growth, S&P 500 Growth) versus their value counterparts (e.g., Russell 1000 Value, S&P 500 Value), so it makes sense to take a deeper dive. The median growth stock trades at a similar valuation (on both an absolute and relative basis versus non-growth stocks) to where it started 2015. For example, the median P/E of Russell 1000 Growth stocks that have no weight assigned to the Russell 1000 Value traded at a next 12-month P/E of 19.4 at the start of 2015. This group of stocks entered 2016 with a very similar next 12-month P/E of 19.5, and ended the first quarter at 19.7. Absolute valuations for this group as a whole are not cheap, and therefore, risks associated with coming up short of investor expectations can be high. However, the premium for these high-growth businesses versus the rest of the Russell 1000 is well within historical norms (see chart below). Against this backdrop, we continue to seek opportunities to own well-positioned, growth-oriented businesses with valuations that offer attractive compensation for the risks taken. The number of such opportunities might be fewer than earlier in the current market cycle, but we believe a selective and active approach to investing can maximize the likelihood of finding such companies today. Click to enlarge Investing in companies that can grow their earnings at rates above the trend in broad economic growth is particularly important in today’s slow-growth economy. As an illustration, we’ve taken returns in the U.S. equity market on a rolling 10-year basis and broken them down into how much came from earnings growth and how much came from changes in the P/E multiple (i.e., multiple expansion or contraction). Beginning in 1970, it has been earnings growth that has been more consistent and stable most of the time (see chart below). Historically, earnings growth has been a more reliable contributor to the returns we get as investors than multiple expansion. Click to enlarge While there certainly are periods in which multiple expansion drove or provided a boost to returns, changes in multiples have been quite volatile. In the 1980s and 1990s – when multiple growth helped returns – the market was coming off some attractive starting valuations and had a backdrop that was favorable for rising valuations. As a result, there was solid multiple expansion. But before that – and, more importantly, recently – not only could investors not rely on multiple expansion, they also had to deal with multiple contraction. This is one illustration of why we believe it is particularly important right now to focus on companies that are capable of growing their earnings on an individual basis, which, in our view, puts investors in a much better position to generate positive returns. Past performance does not guarantee future results.