Tag Archives: xhr-cb-time

US Value Stocks: Rewriting The Market’s Playbook

Summary The traditional playbook that investors have used to navigate market cycles has become outdated. Certain sectors usually become inexpensive after the type of market run that we’ve experienced during the past few years. But investors are chasing yield, which has kept certain stocks expensive. Invesco’s US Value complex includes three broad strategies, each with a distinct approach to evaluating companies. Looking into 2015, we highlight where each approach is seeing the most attractive opportunities. By Kevin Holt The traditional playbook that investors have used to navigate market cycles has become outdated. Certain sectors usually become inexpensive after the type of market run that we’ve experienced during the past few years. But, because interest rates are so low, investors are chasing yield. That has kept certain stocks expensive when you wouldn’t normally expect them to be, based on past cycles. At the same time, other sectors look attractive when they would normally be out of favor. For example, when you look at market history, value investors would not typically want to own financials at this point in the cycle. However, as we enter 2015, I believe financials have very attractive valuations, along with a surplus of capital that I expect to be returned back to shareholders in the form of increased dividends and/or stock buybacks. Overall, I believe the quality of the financials sector is the best we’ve seen in at least a decade, and see this story playing out over the course of the next four or five years. On the other hand, I believe that broadly, the consumer staples and telecommunications sectors are either fairly valued or expensive, as investors have driven up valuations in their search for yield. However, as bottom-up stock pickers, all of our value managers are focused on finding value opportunities wherever they may be – even within sectors that may be overvalued as a whole. Invesco’s US Value complex includes three broad strategies. There are many ways to be successful and intellectual independence is a core value across our teams. Each strategy has a distinct approach to evaluating companies. Looking into 2015, here is where each approach is seeing the most attractive opportunities: Our relative value strategies look for companies that are inexpensive relative to their own history. In this space, we have a particular interest in energy stocks as we enter the new year. Often, market volatility can lead to value opportunities, as quality companies get swept up in the sell-off. The oil markets experienced significant volatility toward the end of 2014 that may result in such opportunities. Our deep value strategies look for companies that are trading at a discount to their intrinsic value. In this space, our managers are also emphasizing energy stocks as well as financials, for the reasons stated above. Our dividend value strategies closely evaluate companies’ total return profile, emphasizing appreciation, income and preservation over a full market cycle. Through this lens, they are finding stock-specific opportunities within the consumer area. Our dividend managers have a high confidence in the durability of margins and of free cash flow generation for their holdings over the next two to three years, and believe that expectations for top-line recovery embedded in street estimates are conservative. So, while 2015 may feel like a very different year for the markets, our approach is the same as ever – across all three value sleeves, and across large-, mid- and small-cap stocks, we’re looking for opportunities that fit our philosophy, no matter what the typical market playbook says. Important information A value style of investing is subject to the risk that the valuations never improve or that the returns will trail other styles of investing or the overall stock markets. Common stocks do not assure dividend payments. Dividends are paid only when declared by an issuer’s board of directors and the amount of any dividend may vary over time. Stocks of small and mid-sized companies tend to be more vulnerable to adverse developments, may be more volatile, and may be illiquid or restricted as to resale. The information provided is for educational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of the suitability of any investment strategy for a particular investor. Invesco does not provide tax advice. The tax information contained herein is general and is not exhaustive by nature. Federal and state tax laws are complex and constantly changing. Investors should always consult their own legal or tax professional for information concerning their individual situation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors, are based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. These opinions may differ from those of other Invesco investment professionals. NOT FDIC INSURED MAY LOSE VALUE NO BANK GUARANTEE All data provided by Invesco unless otherwise noted. Invesco Distributors, Inc. is the US distributor for Invesco Ltd.’s retail products and collective trust funds. Invesco Advisers, Inc. and other affiliated investment advisers mentioned provide investment advisory services and do not sell securities. Invesco Unit Investment Trusts are distributed by the sponsor, Invesco Capital Markets, Inc., and broker-dealers including Invesco Distributors, Inc. PowerShares® is a registered trademark of Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). Each entity is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Invesco Ltd. ©2014 Invesco Ltd. All rights reserved. blog.invesco.us.com

An ERP Retrospective: Looking Back (2014) And Looking Forward (2015)

At the beginning of 2014, the expectation was that government bond rates that had been kept low, at least according to the market mythology, by central banks and quantitative easing, would rise and that this would put downward pressure on stocks, which were already richly priced. Perhaps to spite the forecasters, stocks continued to rise in 2014, delivering handsome returns to investors, and government bond rates continued to fall in the US and Europe, notwithstanding the slowing down of quantitative easing. Commodity prices dropped dramatically, with oil plunging by almost 50%, Europe remained the global economic weak link, scaling up growth became more difficult for China and the US economy showed signs of perking up. Now, the sages are back, telling us what is going to happen to markets in 2015 and we continue to give them megaphones, notwithstanding their forecasting history. Rather than do a standard recap, I decided to use my favored device for assessing overall markets, the equity risk premium (ERP), to take a quick trip down memory lane and set up for the year to come. The ERP: Setting the stage The ERP is what investors demand over and above the risk free rate for investing in equities as an asset class. At the risk of sounding over-the-top, if there is one number that captures investors’ hopes, fears and expectations it is this number, and I have not only posted multiple times on it in the last few years but also updated it every month on my website . In making these updates, I have had to confront a key question of how best to measure the ERP. Many practitioners use a historical risk premium, estimated by looking at how much investors have earned on stocks, relative to the returns on something risk free (usually defined as government bills & bonds). Due to the volatility in stock returns, you need very long time periods of data to estimate these premiums, with “long time period” defined as 50, 75 or even 100 years of data. At the start of each year, I estimate the historical risk premiums for the United States and my January 1, 2015 update is below: Based on this table, the historical equity risk premium for the US is between 2.73% to 8%, depending on the time period, risk free rate and averaging approach used. I will also cheerfully admit that I don’t trust or use any of these numbers in my valuations, for three reasons. First, using a historical risk premium requires a belief in mean reversion, i.e., that things will always go back to the way they used to be, that I no longer have. Second, all of these estimates of risk premiums carry large standard errors, ranging from 8.65% for the 2005-2014 estimate (effectively making it pure noise) to 2.32% for the 86-year estimate. Third, it is a static number that changes little as the world changes around you, which you may view as a sign of stability, but I see as denial. In pursuit of a forward-looking, less noisy and dynamic equity risk premium, I drew on a standard metric in the bond market, the yield to maturity: In the equity market analogue, the bond price is replaced with stock index level, the bond coupons with expected cashflows from stocks, with the twist that the cash flows can continue in perpetuity: (click to enlarge) There are both estimation questions (Are cashflows on stocks just dividends, inclusive of buybacks or a broader measure of residual free cashflows to equity?) and challenges (Do you use last year’s cash flow or a normalized value? How do you estimate future growth? How do you deal with a perpetuity?), but they are not insurmountable. In my monthly estimates for the ERP for the S&P 500, here are my default assumptions: (click to enlarge) This estimate is forward-looking, because it is based on expected future cashflows, dynamic, because it changes as stock prices, expected cash flows and interest rates change, and it is surprisingly robust to alternative assumptions about cash flows and growth. The spreadsheet that I use allows you to replace my default assumptions with yours and check the effects in the ERP. The ERP in 2014 Using the framework described in the last section, I estimated an equity risk premium of 4.96% for the S&P 500 on January 1, 2014: (click to enlarge) During 2014, the S&P 500 climbed 11.39% during the year but also allowing for changes in cash flows, growth and the risk free rate, my update from January 1, 2015, yields an implied equity risk premium of 5.78%: (click to enlarge) At the start of each month in 2014, I posted my estimate of the ERP for the S&P 500 on my website. The figure below graphs out the paths followed by the S&P 500 and the ERP through 2014: (click to enlarge) The ERP moved within a fairly narrow band for most of the year, ranging from just under 5% to about 5.5%, with the jump to 5.78% at the end of the year, reflecting the updating of the growth rate. The Drivers of ERP in 2014 To understand the meandering of the ERP during 2014, note that it is determined by four variables: the level of the index, the base year cash flow, the expected growth and the government bond rate, and is a reflection of the risk that investors perceive in equities. In the figure below, I chronicle the changes in these variables during 2014, at least in my ERP estimates. (click to enlarge) A confession is in order. While I update the index levels and government bond rates in real time, I update cashflows once every quarter and the growth rates materially only once a year (at the start of each year). One reason for the precipitous jump in the ERP in the January 1, 2015, update is the updating of the long term growth rate to 5.58% on that date. Updating the cashflow and growth estimates more frequently will smooth out the ERP but not change the starting and ending points. Perspective: Against history and other markets When I stated earlier in the post that the ERP was the one number that encapsulated investor hopes and fears, I was not exaggerating, since every statement about the overall market can be restated in terms of the ERP. Thus, if you believe that the ERP at the start of 2015 is around 5.78% (my estimate but you can replace with yours), your market views can be laid bare by how you answer the following question: Given what you perceive as risk in the market, do you think that 5.78% is a fair premium? If your answer is that it (5.78%) is too low (high), you are telling me that you think stock prices are too high (low). One reason that I posit that I am not a market timer is because I struggle with this question and there are two simple comparisons that I use for comfort. One is to compare the ERP today to implied quit risk premiums in previous years to see how it measures up to historic norms. The figure below summarizes implied equity risk premiums from 1960 to 2014: Looking at the historical numbers, the current ERP looks high, not low; it is close to the norm if you use only the post-2008 time period. It is this argument that I used to contest the notion that the market was in a bubble in June 2014 . The other is to compare the equity risk premium to risk premiums in other asset markets. In the bond market, for instance, the default spread for corporate bonds is a measure of the risk premium and the figure below compares the equity risk premium to the Baa default spreads each year from 1960 to 2014: Again, if history is any indication, equity risk premiums do not look inflated, relative to Baa default spread, though it is entirely possible that both spreads are too low. (You can download the data and check for yourself.) We are and will continue to be inundated by experts, sages and market prognosticators, each wielding their preferred market measures, trying to convince us that markets are under or overvalued. In this New York Times article from December 31, 2014 , looking at where the market stands going into 2015, the writer pointed to two widely followed statistics, the Shiller PE, a measure of how stocks are priced relative to inflation-adjusted earnings, and the Buffett ratio, relating the market cap of US stocks to the US GDP, and suggested that both pointed to an over valued markets. Both Robert Shiller and Warren Buffett are illustrious figures, but I think that both statistics are flawed, the Shiller PE, because it does not control for low interest rates, and the Buffett ratio, because of its failure to factor in the globalization of US companies. On market timing, I prefer to set my own course and am not going to be swayed by celebrity name-power in making my judgments. The Weakest Links If you believe at this point that I am sanguine about what stocks will do next year, you would be wrong. The nature of equity investing is that it is always coupled with worries and that the best laid plans can be destroyed by events out of your control. The notion that stocks always win in the long term is misplaced and there is a reason why we earn a risk premium for investing in equities. Looking at 2015, these are the three biggest dangers that I see: 1. An Earnings Shock? While current stock prices can be justified based on current cash flows, the cash flows to equity investors in 2014, from dividends and buybacks, represented an unusually high percentage of earnings, which, in turn, were at a high watermark, relative to history. Note that US companies paid out 87.58% of earnings to investors, below the 2007 & 2008 levels, but still well above the historical average (73.68%), and the profit margin of 9.84% in 2014 is the highest in the 2001-2014 time period. Both aggregate earnings and the payout ratio will be tested in the year to come. With aggregate earnings, the first test will be in the near term as the dramatic drop in oil prices in 2014 will play havoc with earnings at oil companies. As I noted in my earlier post on oil prices, lower oil prices may create a net positive benefit for the economy, but the immediate earnings benefit to the rest of the market will be modest. The second test may come from slower economic growth. While the US economy looks like it is on the mend, earnings at US companies are increasingly global, and a slowing down of the Chinese economic machine coupled with more stagnation in Europe, may net out to lower earnings. With the payout ratio, the challenge will be to deliver the earnings growth that investors are expecting, while paying out the high percentage of earnings that they are right now. 2. Fear the Fed? I have made this point before in my posts, but it is worth making again. While the equity risk premium has gone up significantly since the pre-2008 crisis, all of the increase in the risk premium has come from the risk free rate dropping and not from expected returns on stocks increasing. (click to enlarge) If the US 10-year T.Bond rate were at 4%, closer to pre-2008 levels, right now, the equity risk premium would be only 3.95%. 3. Crisis, contagion and collapse? If we learned nothing else from 2008, it should be this. We are all part of a global economy, connected at the hip, and while that can yield benefits, the contagion risk has increased, where a crisis in one part of the world spills over into the rest of it. Again drawing on my post on oil, one danger of the sudden collapse in oil prices is that it has not only increased uncertainty about economic growth in the next year but also increased the risk of large, levered oil companies defaulting and sending shockwaves through the rest of the economy. The perfect storm, of course, would be for all three phenomenon to occur together: a drop in earnings and an increase in interest rates, with an overlay of a global crisis, with catastrophic consequences of stocks. I think that the odds of this happening are low, because the circumstances that cause an earnings collapse are the ones that would keep interest rates low, but I may be missing something. If you disagree, you could take the safe route and hold cash, but unless your probability assessments of a crash are high and a crash is imminent, that does not strike me as prudent. (I have reattached the spreadsheet that I developed for my post on bubbles that you can use to make your own assessment.) Bottom line Like every other year in my investing memory, I start this year both hopeful and fearful, hopeful that financial markets will navigate through whatever the new year will throw at them and fearful that there will be something that will rock them. Given what I know now, I don’t see any reason to dramatically alter my exposure to stocks, bonds or real assets, and I will continue to look for stocks that I think are underpriced. I wish you the very best in your investment choices this year as well and I hope that no matter what happens to your portfolio, you are healthy and happy! Attachments: Data Sets Historical Returns for US stocks, T.Bonds and T.Bills: 1928-2014 Implied Equity Risk Premiums for S&P 500: 1960-2014 ERP, Baa Yields and Real Estate Cap Rates: 1960-2014 Spreadsheets Implied ERP Spreadsheet: January 1, 2015 Data Update 2015 Posts An ERP Retrospective: Looking back (2014) and Looking forward (2015)

Yellen’s Inflation Compensation And GLD

Summary The Fed is an important influencer of inflation, and for 2015, the Fed is ready to accept inflation as low as 1% and this will push down gold prices. The Fed is ready to fight possible long-term inflation as the economy grows by raising Fed Rates and gradually reducing its $4.55 trillion balance sheet if necessary. Yellen is signaling that the Fed is going to ignore market based weak inflation expectations as seen by the new term ‘inflation compensation’ on the Treasury market. Slim possibility that inflation will overshoot the 2% target, it is more likely to undershoot as energy prices are not transitory. A significant portion of gold holders still see high inflation as the economy strengthens. This is not applicable now and it is time to sell GLD before the crowd does. Fed, Inflation and Gold Frequent readers of my articles on gold will realize that I have been bearish on gold for quite some time now. Gold has many purposes and one of which is for its usage as storage of value. There will always be someone who is willing to buy and store gold if they do not believe in today’s monetary order or simply to form part of a diversified portfolio, and there are those who buy gold as an inflation hedge. This article is targeted for those who view gold as an inflation hedge. There will be a significant portion of investors who will buy gold as an inflation hedge, and it is the changes in inflation or inflation expectations which will have a big impact on the price of gold. There is no other institution that has more influence on inflation than the Federal Reserve, and this is why I believe that by following the Fed closely, we can better inform ourselves on inflation and that is why most of my gold article involves the Fed in one way or the other. The latest Fed document comes in the form of Chair Janet Yellen’s press conference on 17 December 2014. As always, the mainstream media is obsessed with when the Fed will raise interest rates, and there are a number of questions on it with the word ‘patient’ being the new buzz word. If you read the press articles elsewhere, you will probably be informed that the Fed will not raise rates for ‘a couple’ of meetings. Indeed, during the question and answer session, one reporter even wanted to confirm with the Chair if ‘a couple’ means 2 meetings which was subsequently confirmed. However, this is actually quite meaningless for the serious investors because Yellen has qualified her response as data dependent so who is to stop her from raising rates in the next meeting or 5 meetings down the road? She has certainly kept that possibility open, and remember that the US grew by 5% in the third quarter of 2014. My article may have come after all the buzz has subsided, but as you read about it in the new year of 2015, I hope to bring about new perspective based on some points that are largely ignored by the media. Let me bring your attention to the idea of inflation compensation, the existing size of the Fed’s balance sheet, and the Fed’s own inflation expectation for 2015, together with their view of a transitory low energy prices. Rate Hikes and Balance Sheet – Tools ready to Cap Growth Related Inflation Let us first begin with the concept that monetary policy works with a lag time. So the appropriate response to do is to predict as best as possible what will happen in the future and set policy that will ensure that the Fed’s dual mandate of stable prices and maximum employment is achieved as much as possible when the monetary policy takes effect. The Fed views that stable price means a 2% inflation target and predicts that this will be reached in 2017. Stable prices can only be achieved together with an appropriate Federal Funds Rate, which stands at 3.75% in the long run. However, the Fed set a target of 2.5% by 2017 to accommodate for the economic recovery and deal with the residual effect of the Great Recession. This will fit into the narrative where they would start to raise rates in 2015 and gradually guide rates towards their target as they expect the economy to grow in strength. For the shorter term, the Fed’s own forecast, which they would have factored in their own rate hikes, expects inflation to stay between 1% to 1.6% in 2015. This range is within the current Personal Consumption Expenditure inflation reading of 1.4% . So at least in the short term, the Fed is willing to accept lower inflation reading and this is going to be bearish on gold. However, gold might still catch a bid if there is a reasonable expectation for inflation to increase significantly in the future. This is where the size of the Fed balance sheet comes into the picture and where the uncertainty over the inflation compensation comes into play. The Fed is holding $4.55 trillion of assets as of 24 December 2014 and $4.47 trillion comes in the form of Federal Reserve credit. While this may have been accommodative in the past, it can also be used to keep a lid on inflation as seen in the quote by Yellen below. “Rather than actively planning to sell the assets that we’ve put onto our balance sheet, sometime after we begin raising our targets for short-term interest rates, depending on economic and financial conditions, we’re likely to reduce or cease reinvestment and gradually run down the stock of our assets. But our active tool for adjusting monetary – the stance of monetary policy so that it is appropriate for the economic needs for the country, that will be done through adjusting our short-term target range for the federal funds rate.” Yellen’s quote above shows that the Fed is ready to tighten monetary policy not only through the federal rate hike that is in the spotlight recently, but also through a gradual reduction of its balance sheet assets. Hence, we can conclude that the Fed is poised to reign in any runaway inflation that they expect when the economy recovers. This is an old economic theory that is about to be revisited by the investment community at large. Also, consider the argument that low energy prices may be here to stay in this excellent article by Kyle Spencer. The Fed has a bullish outlook for the US economy, and this is the majority view of the FOMC and they are prepared to reign in long-term inflation. The biggest cheerleader of them all has to be the Dallas Fed President, and you can read all about it in this article, Dallas Fed Fisher’s Prescience And GLD . In that article, I gave you the reason that the USD will rise, as the strong 5% GDP growth reinforces the possibility of an earlier rate hike and this will bring down the price of gold that is denominated in USD. In this article, I am now giving you another reason to sell which is to say that the Fed has capped all possibilities of inflation going higher than 2%. In all possibilities, inflation is more included to remain lower than what the Fed expects. My view is that the economy may grow, but inflation might not move towards the 2% target that is expected by the Fed. The tightening of monetary conditions by way of rate hikes will act as an inflation dampener in 2017. I have written about it in this article, Growflation And The 1% Fed Inflation Target In 2015 so I am not going to repeat myself. I am going to bring a new perspective of the declining yield of the 5-year treasury yields and how the Fed is responding to it. Instead of seeing it as a sign of a decline in inflation expectations, they see that it is possible that this could be due to an influx of funds due to the USD safe haven status. Inflation Compensation “Well, what I would say, we refer to this in the statement as “inflation compensation” rather than “inflation expectations.” The gap between the nominal yields on 10-year Treasuries, for example, and TIPS have declined-that’s inflation compensation. And five-year, five-year-forwards,as you’ve said, have also declined. That could reflect a change in inflation expectations, but it could also reflect changes in assessment of inflation risks. The risk premium that’s necessary to compensate for inflation, that might especially have fallen if the probabilities attached to very high inflation have come down. And it can also reflect liquidity effects in markets. And, for example, it’s sometimes the case that-when there is a flight to safety, that flight tends to be concentrated in nominal Treasuries and could also serve to compress that spread. So I think the jury is out about exactly how to interpret that downward move in inflation compensation. And we indicated that we are monitoring inflation developments carefully.” I have quoted Yellen on her answer above as this is a new concept. This would imply that the Fed would not take reference from market signals as credible inflation measurement for a while. This is evident in Yellen’s renaming of inflation expectation to inflation compensation instead. In other words, investors may expect 2% inflation in 5 years time, but increased demand for Treasury bills pushed down their actual yield to 1.538% (Current Yield of 1.66%-0.125% TIPS, see chart below). Hence, this 1.538% inflation market expectation is not a good gauge of actual inflation 5 years later. Source: Bloomberg This safe haven argument is not an unreasonable one, as Europe and Japan are still mired in economic troubles. Europe, Japan and Switzerland have all instituted negative interest rates, and it is only logical that international capital would flee these financial centers and enter into secure Treasury holdings, especially when the market has reasonable expectations that rates are going to rise soon. So to summarize it even further, Yellen is telling the world that the Treasury inflation pricing mechanism is malfunctioning now so don’t take it seriously. Since the Fed is going to raise rates soon, the danger is not that it would overshoot its inflation target, but rather that it will undershoot the inflation target. This is why I am bearish on gold as there is little upside to inflation to support gold prices. As long as the market continues its expectation that inflation is coming as the economy recovers, they will continue to overprice gold as there will be investors who will hold gold with a longer time horizon. Profiting with GLD In other words, there is a very slim possibility of high inflation in the days ahead, and the greater possibility is that inflation will undershoot the 2% target in the medium term. Hence, there is no reason to hold gold as an inflation hedge. As the new consensus builds around this, gold prices will continue its secular decline. The way for investors to profit from this is to sell the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: GLD ). There are other gold ETFs, but GLD is the most liquid at $27.45 billion market capitalization and 7.9 million of last known daily transaction. (click to enlarge) As you can see on the chart above, GLD has been on the bearish decline, but periodically there will be strength for which investors can sell on. This is indicative of a healthy market for which to sell GLD. The pullback indicates the profit taking of the bears. Of course, this bearishness of GLD will end one day as it approaches its true value. However, this will only happen after we see the significant portion of gold holders who hold in expectation of higher inflation as the economy grows give up their position. For most, this will only occur when they continue to see low inflation amid high growth. Then they will question themselves why they are willing to lose out on the economic growth by tying up their funds on their gold holding when there is very low inflation. So for readers who hold gold as an inflation hedge and are persuaded by my arguments, the time to sell gold is now before a flood of sell orders enter the market.