Strong Third Quarter Performance is Encouraging for Future Performance

 

How High Above Expectations are Third-Quarter Earnings?

 

Company performance last quarter was strong, well above expectations. With 89% of the companies in the S&P 500 having released September-quarter earnings, an impressive 86% have reported a positive earnings surprise as announced by Factset. If this percent holds, it will be the highest percentage of S&P 500 companies reporting a positive EPS surprise since FactSet began tracking this metric in 2008. On average, earnings are beating estimates by 2.6% The outperformance most likely represents conservative guidance by management and estimates by analysts following the pandemic-depressed second quarter. These concerns have eased but have not gone away. Are the quarter’s results a sign that things are better than expected (optimism), or are there enough cracks to point out growing economic and political concern (pessimistic)?

Optimistic Arguments

  • The percent reporting positive surprises is higher than normal and widespread.  It is not unusual for more companies to report positive earnings surprises than earnings disappointments.  Historically, about 65% of the companies report results above expectations.  However, 86% is high. What’s more, the outperformance is widespread. All eleven sectors reported better-than-expected EPS, on average. In the case of Consumer Staples, Health Care, Industrials, and Materials, more than 90% of the companies are reporting results above expectations.
  • The level of outperformance is high and supported by top-line growth. On average, earnings are beating estimates by 2.6%. If this holds, it will be the largest outperformance since FactSet began tracking performance in 2008. Seventy-nine percent of the S&P 500 companies reported revenue growth above estimates. Like earnings, the percent reporting a favorable revenue surprise would be a record.
  • Earnings momentum looks like it will continue into the fourth quarter. Of the companies giving guidance, 68% reported positive EPS guidance for the upcoming quarter. Analysts have followed management guidance. The median analyst estimate for the fourth quarter rose 1.8% during the month of October. The increase comes after sharp estimate decreases in the second quarter. The increase contrasts with previous periods. Over the last ten years, analysts have reduced their estimates by 2.2%, on average, in the first month after quarter’s end.

Pessimistic Arguments

  • Results may be an upside surprise, but they are down year-over-year.  For the companies reporting, earnings are down 7.5% versus last year, on average.  If this decline holds after all companies have reported, it will represent the sixth quarter of the last seven to report year-over-year declines.
  • Strong earnings reflect an economic recovery from pandemic restrictions, and the pandemic is worsening. As the number of reported COVID-19 cases have been trending higher, government officials are beginning to consider reimposing activity restrictions. Already, several governments in Europe have added restrictions, and the Biden transition team has hinted it would as well.
  • Valuations are still high. The forward 12-month P/E ratio is 21.6. This ratio is above the ten-year average of 15.5 times. The average price target is only 11% above current stock prices. High valuations leave less room for stocks to perform well unless results continue to come in better than expected.

On Balance

The market looks well beyond near-term results, and it will be company performance over the next several years that will impact future stock price performance. That said, strong results this quarter are a good harbinger of future performance. This quarter’s results are encouraging and seem to indicate that management and analysts have overestimated the individual company impact of broader economic and political concerns.

Suggested Reading:

Financial Markets Lifted Household Wealth to Record Levels

Which Stocks Do Well After a Presidential Election

Many Investors are
Keeping Their Powder Dry

 

Do You Know a College Student?

Tell them about the College Challenge!

 

Sources:

https://www.factset.com/hubfs/Resources%20Section/Research%20Desk/Earnings%20Insight/EarningsInsight_110620A.pdf, John Butters, FactSet, November 6, 2020

Smart Money Followers May Have to Work With Less Data

 

SEC May Limit Individual Investors Knowing What Some Money Managers are Doing

 

In mid-July, the Securities & Exchange Commission proposed to amend Form 13F to update the reporting threshold for institutional money managers. Adopted in 1978, Form 13F requires money managers who manage in excess of $100 million to submit a list of their long equity holdings each quarter within 45 days of the end of the quarter. The purpose of the original rule was to provide the SEC with data from larger money managers about their investment activities and holdings so that their influence and impact could be considered in maintaining fair and orderly securities markets. The $100 million reporting threshold has not been adjusted in over 40 years.

Big Changes in SEC Proposal

The SEC proposal would lift the threshold to $3.5 billion, reflecting proportionately the same market value of U.S. equities that $100 million represented in 1978. The new threshold would retain disclosure of over 90% of the dollar value of the holdings data currently reported while eliminating the 13F filing requirement for nearly 90% of the filers that are smaller money managers, or some 4,500 investment managers, overseeing $2.3 trillion in assets, according to the National Investor Relations Institute. The SEC estimates the elimination of 13F filing requirements for smaller money managers could cut direct compliance costs some $15,000 to $30,000 annually per manager or $68.1 million to $136 million annually in aggregate.

Opposition Almost 100:1

What’s not to like about reducing “paperwork” while saving investors money? Sounds good, right? Well, in the first few days following the Proposal, 179 comment letters had been filed with the SEC in response to the Proposal – and 177 of those letters are opposed to it. Comments continue to trickle in, with the most recent from October 16th, and each of the last ten were opposed to the proposed rule changes, although some expressed interest in some type of change to the existing rules, just not the one’s the SEC has proposed. An article in the Harvard Law School Forum for Corporate Governance commented, “It is difficult to see how eliminating the limited transparency into ownership by activist and other hedge funds, and instead of increasing the percentage of 13(f) information provided by “price-taking” index funds rather than smaller active funds that set prices, will further” the goals of data gathering and increasing investor confidence in the integrity of the securities markets.

Why the seeming outpouring of opposition to the SEC proposal? According to the CFA Institute, “The resulting loss of holdings information would harm market participants such as, among others, investors, issuers, researchers, and the affected institutional investment managers themselves.” The CFA goes on to say, “We also believe the Proposal would run counter to other statutory objectives, such as the need to build investor confidence, enable issuers to identify their beneficial owners, afford an understanding of the effect of institutional investor activities on individual securities, and serve as a single centralized repository of certain holdings data. And finally, we believe the economic analysis falls short in establishing a baseline of current practices and assessing the costs and benefits of the proposed rulemaking in a thorough and impartial manner.”

Small Investors Have a Beef

An especially galling aspect to small and individual investors is the significant reduction in the ability to “follow the smart money.” A Forbes article noted that “Goldman Sachs estimates that the number of funds tracked, that would continue filing 13Fs, would plunge from 815 to just 65 if the filing threshold increased to $3.5 billion, which highlights only how much less transparency there would be if the proposal were implemented.” And in an article for Columbia Law School, Eduardo Gallardo pointed out that some of the most prolific activist funds would no longer have to file 13Fs, including Jana Partners, Starboard Value, Greenlight Capital, along with many others. In fact, of FactSet’s SharkWatch 50 list of the top activist funds, just ten would still have to file 13Fs. While following the “smart money” isn’t a panacea, many investors track these investors to get additional insights not only into individual stocks but industries and the overall stock market.

Where There is Agreement

Despite the opposition to the SEC proposals, many stakeholders and market observers agree that the rules and regulations need modernizing. Such potential changes include shortening the reporting window so that shares held updates are available as soon as two business days following the quarter end, rather than 45 days, and to change the reporting period from quarterly to monthly to match the short?sale reporting period. A number of proposals also have commented on increasing the reporting threshold, though none as high as the SEC proposal.

 

Suggested Reading:

Financial Markets Lifted Household Wealth to Record Levels

JOLTS Report Suggests More Risk Taking

U.S. Debt as a Percentage of GDP is Skyrocketing

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has a maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

 

Sources:

https://secsearch.sec.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=secsearch&sort_by=&query=Pictures+13F

https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/author/eduardo-gallardo/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobwolinsky/2020/09/16/sec-13f-proposal-bad-for-investors-and-companies/#114477594b25

Fintech Pirates are Looting Unsuspecting Trading Accounts

 

Cyber-Piracy Risk and Protecting Online Brokerage Accounts

 

The increasing popularity of online and smartphone trading has increased opportunities for a few unwanted players. Unfortunately, some of these players are hackers, thieves, and other conmen. Just as the rise of email opened the door for the wealthy “Nigerian Princes” to reach out across the ocean and solicit financial help, technology and interconnectivity open the doors to new scams and other avenues for criminals to gain information on you with bad intent.

Brokerage Community

The enhanced ability to work remotely, which was more broadly adopted and rushed into place by the challenges of 2020, has since caused an increase in opportunities to hack information from unsuspecting computer and smartphone users. The online brokerage community has been a recent victim. This past week, one popular trading app reported that it had a “limited number” of customer accounts targeted by cybercriminals. Although many of these 2000 odd accounts had been looted and skimmed, the broker made clear that their systems themselves were not hacked. The fintech criminals were able to compromise users’ personal email accounts outside of the trading app; they then used those emails to gain access to customer’s login, the company said.

Recourse

Investment brokerages rely on providing, information, reliability, and execution. However, none of these will keep them in business without an outstanding reputation. Broker’s need to maintain this reputation, for this reason they may be inclined to help investors whose accounts, through no fault of the broker, have been looted. This type of theft is not covered by FDIC insurance as it would be (within limits) at most depository institutions. The SIPC signage you see at many brokerage firms provides coverage only for cash and securities in the trading account. This insurance coverage comes into play primarily if the broker is in financial trouble, and customer assets are missing. It does not provide protection against other theft. And, the SIPC is not a regulatory body of any kind.  The recent cases referred to above, involved individuals own electronic devices being hacked.

The brokerage community is not automatically responsible for your online weaknesses. That is generally up to you. The growth in popularity of online trading has exposed weaknesses on many fronts. In order to have some level of comfort, it is best to research how individual brokers have historically handled cases of their customers’ login being hacked. It’s also good practice to see how easy it is to reach their customer service number. If money is wired out of your account without authorization, it may be possible for the broker to reverse the transfer. But not if they are unreachable. If you have an account, you may decide to find that number now and put it in your phone’s directory rather than try to find it on their site when speed is important.

Individual brokerages have their own policies. If cybersecurity is a large concern of yours, you may want to prioritize working with a company that guarantees they will take responsibility. Even if it means they are lacking in other services and conveniences offered by others.

 

The Charles Schwab website explains its policy on cybercrime.

 

Protection

No one is scam proof, but there are precautions you can take and red flags you should recognize. Some of the more basic precautions include not divulging your personal information to any non-authorized person. If you are called by someone asking for information, call them back using the website’s direct number. If an email or website looks odd, question it. Look at the URL, dig deeper to ensure the site is legitimate.

 

The Interactive Brokers website has a notice posted on how to avoid phishing scams.

 

You shouldn’t use unknown or unprotected WiFi when logging into your account. Check your balances frequently, even if you haven’t transacted in a while. Also, brokers are required to issue confirmations of transactions and account statements at scheduled intervals. Open them, and be sure to review the statements closely. Look to see if there are any unauthorized activity in your account. Make sure your cash balance reconciles with your known activity. Make certain your contact and address information have not been changed. As an additional layer of caution, take the time to change your password as frequently as practical.

Any questions should be directed to the brokerage firm in writing. You may first call to be expeditious but then follow-up with documentation of the call, including who you spoke with and all details of what was discussed.

Below are helpful resources on where to turn for help should you believe you are a victim of cybercriminals: 

 

Suggested Reading:

A Feather in the Cap of Robinhood Traders

Why do Small-Caps Outperform After a Major Election

Investment Barriers Once Seen as Insurmountable are Falling Fast

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has a maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to, and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meetings intrigue you here.

 

Sources:

Facts Statistics Identity Theft and Cybercrime

Robinhood Accounts Hacked

SIPC About Page

Schwabsafe Guaranty

Photo: howtostartablogonline.net

Many Investors Are Keeping Their Powder Dry

 

Will Sidelined Investors’ Patience End Soon?

 

COVID. A Gyrating stock market. Economic uncertainty. A Presidential Election. These and other factors have combined to push funds held in money markets by retail and institutional investors to all-time highs. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Economic Research, at the end of September, retail investors held $1.09 trillion in money market funds, down slightly from the all-time high of $1.15 trillion at the end of May this year and well above the $600 billion-$800 billion range typically held over the past decade. Institutional investors held $3.0 trillion in money market funds at the end of September, down slightly from the $3.2 trillion peak earlier this year and well above the historic $1.6 trillion-$2.0 trillion range over the past decade.

Combined, there are some $1.5-$2.0 trillion of above-average funds being held in money markets today. Put another way, a potential $1.5-$2.0 trillion of Dry Powder. The Dry Powder amounts to 4.2%-5.6% of the entire market capitalization of all publicly-traded companies in the U.S. A not insignificant sum if it were to be re-invested in the stock market.

While moving to the sidelines in uncertain times is the historical norm, how long can this behavior last? The FDIC reports the average money market rate at 0.08% APY. Bank Rate reports the best (our emphasis) 1-year CD rate at 0.75%, 2-year at 1.00%, and 5-year at 1.35%. But the U.S. Labor Department reported the annual inflation rate for the 12 months ended September 2020 was 1.4%. And the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reports the estimated long-term annual inflation rate at 2.05%. Obviously, on a real basis, holding funds in such investments reduces one’s inflation-adjusted net worth. And this is exacerbated for institutional investors who typically are being paid to invest money, not have it sit on the sidelines.

What about other investment alternatives? MacroTrends reports the current 10-year treasury yield at 0.67%, the lowest rate over the last 60 years. At some point, one would expect treasury yields to begin to rise, which would result in prices of such bonds to decline. Gold at $1,899 per oz is not too far off its 100-year inflation-adjusted high of $2,268 hit in 1980. And while debate rages about the usefulness of gold as a hedge, gold does not pay a dividend and can oftentimes incur carrying costs. And even property values are hitting all-time highs. The St. Louis Fed reports the S&P/Case Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index is at an all-time high of 221, up substantially from the previous high of 184 hit in the summer of 2006.

One potential use of the Dry Powder could be to trim household debt. Household debt hit a record high of $14.3 trillion earlier this year, some $1.6 trillion higher than the previous record during the Great Recession. Housing debt makes up the bulk of overall household debt. Revolving, credit card type of debt has dropped dramatically during the COVID crisis, while auto loans and student loan debt continue to rise. But, if the additional debt incurred was in response to lower rates, at a current 2.89% 30-year mortgage rates are at their lowest levels since at least 1971, according to Freddie Mac, consumers may not be inclined to use Dry Powder to repay such loans.

Given the alternatives, the 7% average annual return of the stock market over time may look appealing to investors seeking places to invest their Dry Powder.

 

Suggested Reading:

Why
Do Small-Cap Stocks Outperform After Elections?

The
Role of Microcap in Tech Future Should Not Be Forgotten

Financial Markets Lifted Household Wealth to Record Levels

 

Subscribe to Channelchek’s YouTube Channel

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has a maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

 

Is there a Perfect Stock Price?

 

Splits, Ticks, and Stock Value

 

During August, when Tesla and Apple had both scheduled stock splits, there was a great deal of online discussion around how the value of these two companies would be impacted. It also opened an opportunity for smaller self-directed investors who want more diversification than they could accomplish with share prices between $500 and $2,000 to wave in a few shares. These investors could be more prudent with their exposure to the companies that have been relentless highflyers – favorites that had been out of reach.

Stock splits, at a minimum, serve to place ownership in more hands of more investors. Broad diversity of ownership is desirable for management and boards who prefer to have their ownership less concentrated; it allows them more autonomy to manage. But, what does it do for the stock price for buyers? On the surface, a stock split doesn’t change the fundamentals of the equity in the hands of the public; does it impact shareholder value? Are trading desks enriched or hurt?

Splits Help Stocks Trade Higher

A company stock split changes how their stocks trade. A lower per-share price expands the pool of interested investors; more demand puts upward pressure on price and improves returns. Increased valuations may then feed increased interest driving the performance even higher. As explained by Poe Fratt, Senior Equity Analyst at Noble Capital Markets, “Investors often regard stock splits as positive even though the market capitalization and valuation of the company don’t change. The perception that stock splits are positive probably emanates from the fact that a stock split generally follows a period of strong stock price performance.” Mr. Fratt continued, “While the valuation doesn’t change, there is a belief that a stock price in the $25-$100/share range enhances trading liquidity and makes the stock more attractive to retail investors.” With retail investors now making up more than 25% of stockholders, the inclusion of the “little guy” puts upward pressure on performance.

On average, it shows up in the stock price over the next 12 months. Large-cap stocks outperform the market after a split by 5% during that year. Companies of all sizes outperform after announcing a split by 2.5%. Academic research confirms that liquidity improvements following stock splits reduced average companies’ cost of equity capital by 17.3% or 2.4 percentage-points per-annum. The benefit, on average, is a material boost to both issuers and investors.

 

On average, split stocks do outperform the market as soon as the split is announced and even more over the next 12 months.

 

Trading for Investors Becomes Less Expensive

The cost of transacting in a name is increased by:

  • Spread The percentage difference between bids and offers.
  • Liquidity The average daily value traded, which limits how much value can be easily transacted in a day.
  • Volatility The risks of losses for market makers providing liquidity, low volatility helps to keep spreads tighter.

 

The Costs of Trading in a name mostly improve.

 

Looking at these metrics for stock-splits from 2012-Q1 2020, they show that on average:

  • Spreads- improved by 22%, with 89% of stocks seeing better spreads.
  • Liquidity- Value traded increased by 18%, with 70% of stocks seeing better liquidity.
  • Intraday Volatility- reduced by 3%, with 66% of stocks seeing lower volatility.

 

These changes all contribute to lower trading costs. A decline in costs increases returns, which then improve valuations.

Tradability and Stock Price

All publicly-traded stocks in the U.S. transact under a very similar set of rules. The rules impact different per-share prices differently.  Two rules that impact ease of trading that have recently been softened by technology still have an effect on the overall cost of getting in and out of a position. They are tick sizes and round lots. Low dollar-priced stocks have ticks that make spreads wider on a percent of share price levels. That increases lengths of time waiting to trade and cost to trade. Simply put, their spreads are necessarily wider. Higher dollar-priced stocks have too many ticks and a larger cost round lot. The higher the number of ticks the easier to jump queues. Their spreads are wide because trading is difficult. The high priced round lot makes it expensive to post bids and offers cheaply. There is a sweet spot. Someplace in between is a price level where the tick more closely represents an ideal tradeoff for immediacy of transacting. The “in-between” stocks trade with the lowest spread costs.

 

 

Wide spreads deter professional portfolio managers that are measured against benchmarks where slippage is not factored in. A wide spread could deter these investors from larger positions. That reduces interest, and the lower demand weighs on price.

The One-Cent Tick Issue

The smallest increment of U.S. currency is $0.01 or one cent. For example, you can bid $5.01 or $5.02, but not in between. This is part of the problem with tick size versus stock price. The one-cent-tick represents a very different cost for a $5 stock (20bps) than a $500 stock (0.2bps).

For low priced stocks, these spreads can be “expensive” for investors to cross. There needs to be confidence that the potential for an increase is high. This slows down the trading queue and liquidity of the shares.

The one-cent tick also distorts trading in higher-priced stocks. High priced stocks have more tick gradations and more odd-lots, even if the market depth is the same.

 

 

The example above compares a $1,000 and a $100 stock with identical liquidity profiles. The top chart shows that ticks on a $1,000 stock are worth just 0.001%. Even the most liquid companies in the U.S. markets have a spread closer to 0.01%. More increments reduce the cost of new buyers jumping in front of (pennying) buyers already in line. This impacts the initial bidder who may miss being filled. At the same time, it doesn’t really improve the price for those selling.

Round Lot Issues

Using the top chart above, once again, we can see an issue with the convention of trading stocks in increments of 100 (round lot). Historically trading in round lots was designed to reduce paperwork on settlement and to ensure that benchmark spread prices reflected a meaningful trade value. Because of this almost outdated convention, odd lots aren’t treated the same way as round lots. The prices quoted to the public are round lot prices. They set the official spread that institutional investors use to calculate trading costs, and they are “protected,” which means traders cannot skip over them to trade elsewhere (including off-exchange).

Round lots can widen spreads. The chart above shows the value of a round lot increases as prices increase. According to Nasdaq research (the V-shape above) is the same regardless of tick size. However, when the stock in the upper chart is split 10:1, the 50-share ($50,000) odd lots become round lots, this instantly adds size to the official quote and cuts the spread for the $100 stock in the lower chart in half. So, with larger increments and smaller round lots, an investor looking to outbid those in the queue now has a more difficult time with the tighter spread.

Regulators are Aware of the High Price Issues

Investors have weighed in about issues trading high priced stocks and are looking to alleviate some of the issues. The SIP committee, responsible the consolidated tape, has proposed adding odd lots to the tape. That fixes the round lot issue but may create a best execution issue if very few shares are indicating the benchmark price. The SEC has proposed changing round lot sizes. This partially helps issues in the round lot quagmire, but while trying to avoid the best execution measurement issues, it removes some investor protections by allowing trade throughs. In Europe, regulators have eliminated round lots and also changed tick sizes.

Stocks are Pricier Than Before

From 1930 until as recently as 2007 nominal prices of common stocks have remained constant at around $30-$40 per share as a result of firms splitting their stocks. Stock splits were so normal that prices held in a consistent range. Before 2007 it was rare for the S&P500 to have more than a few stocks over $100. Now there are more than 100 (approx. a quarter of the index).

 

Number of Stock Splits by S&P 500 Companies

 

It would be easier for traders if stocks traded more uniformly with roughly the same prices. Instead, fewer stock splits have allowed higher stock prices since the financial collapse of 2008. This is a relatively new characteristic of the market.

Some of the blame is placed on Reg NMS which were trading rules instituted in 2007 to help make markets more readily electronic and interconnected. The rule included decimalization (not fractions), which cleared the way for low one-cent ticks. Now, a significant number of stocks have reached well past the level where they are constrained by a one-cent tick. The result is a larger proportion of trading is happening away from listed prices. Price discovery may also be dampened by the lack of visibility widening spreads.

Take-Away

Stock splits fundamentally improve tradability and that boosts share price. Tradability and its connection to trading costs help clear the way for these better valuations. The market’s positive reaction to a stock split announcement confirms that traders know costs matter to longer-term price. It also, according to Mark Reichmann, Senior Equity Analyst at Noble Capital Markets “… signals to the market that management is confident in its operations.”

Statistics demonstrate that many IPOs get priced around $20 to $40 per share. This shows that bankers taking companies public intentionally choose an effective stock price level. But the sweet-spot, where ticks are neither too wide or too narrow, is different for every company. Regulators are beginning to address investor concerns as stock splits have become far less common over the past dozen years. Some of the issues of higher prices are helped by the new trend of brokers offering fractional shares. This ability compounds many other issues–but that’s a topic for another article.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

 

Suggested Reading:

Why do Small-Cap Stocks Outperform After a Major Election

Investment Barriers Once
Seen as Insurmountable are Falling Fast

Trading Technology Continues to Level the Playing Field for Investors

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

 

Sources:

Stock Split Calendar

Three Charts That Show a Dramatic Drop in Stock Splits

Three Compelling Reasons for Companies to Split Stocks

PSU.EDU Academic Research

Why Intelligent Ticks Make Sense

Looking for the perfect Stock Price

Volume and Implications for Access

The Nominal Price Puzzle

A Feather in the Cap of Robinhood Traders

 

Ignore the Anecdotes, Robinhood Traders are Solid Investors (Mostly)

 

Taking positions in bankrupt corporations, indefinitely berthed cruise lines, airline stocks, cannabis, unknown electric vehicle startups, equities that legendary investors are short, and Chinese retailers are all activities Robinhood traders have been ridiculed for. But is the reputation deserved? As a group, the performance of these self-directed investors can be measured. True analysis (not anecdotes) has tested the hypothesis that “they’re all nuts.” This analysis has been done covering the last two years’ worth of data on customers of the company. The results run counter to the reputation these presumably younger, inexperienced investors have been tagged with. The collective Robinhood buys and sells, as a portfolio did not underperform when compared to standard academic benchmark models.

What Was Learned

The National Bureau of Economic Research released a working paper late last month titled:RETAIL RAW: WISDOM OF THE ROBINHOOD CROWD AND THE COVID CRISIS.”  At the heart of the paper, the author, Ivo Welch, a finance professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, looked at the holdings and results of all Robinhood transactions (since inception), using information available through *Robintrack. He then compared risk/reward to professional money managers’ performance, cash, and the overall market.  His results uncovered that Robinhood user’s portfolios, on average, contain 5% of small, less liquid stocks that may be subject to much wider price swings. These smaller positions are often in companies the younger demographic is very familiar with. They also included industries that had either been beaten down, could potentially benefit from the COVID-19 economy, or those nearing a breakthrough of one kind or another.  A much higher percentage of the positions were similar to those held in managed major index mutual funds.  Although RH investors have created volume spikes and even price spikes in lesser-known companies, these were not their largest trading plays. By Professor Welch’s calculations, up to 60% of Robinhood investors’ holdings were stocks with large daily volumes. Companies with the heaviest weights in the average Robinhood portfolio according to the study include Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., American Airlines Group Inc., and Walt Disney Co.

“The actual RH investors portfolio (ARH) was not as crazy as these ‘anecdotal holdings would suggest,” writes Ivo Welch. “Instead, most of the interest of RH investors revolved around larger and highly liquid firms.” The 5% held in smaller companies with lower volumes could easily be argued as appropriate or even prudent for the younger investor. It was additive to the aggregate portfolio outperformance.

 

    New York Times, July 8, 2020

 

Smoothed Pandemic Crisis Selling

The RH self-directed investors are impacting price movements in ways unexpected by more experienced professionals. This is getting more attention from veteran traders as individuals now account for 20% of equity trading. This makes it important to understand them, and foolish to ignore. Welch’s paper provides that the composite model Robinhood equity portfolio has outperformed so far in 2020, and the presence of individual investors has possibly acted as a dampening force during a volatile environment. Whenever the stock market fell in 2020, spikes in retail buying occurred as early as the next day. Then, the second surge in RH volume usually occurred roughly three days after a spike down. Three days is about the time it takes to complete an ACH transfer and make sure there’s good funds in an account.

 

Stock Market performance vs. Robinhood Interest 2018-2020

 

The combined actions of RH trader’s willingness to buy into selling served them and the overall market well. The top plot shows the total Robinhood investment account size (blue/red) charted against the incidence of the word “Covid” on Google Trends (green). It clearly shows RH investing accelerated at the beginning of the crisis in the U.S. The bottom plot shows the change in Robinhood holdings (black) against the changes in the value of the S&P 500. The drop in the overall market was met with growth in total RH portfolio value. RH investors did not panic or experience margin calls. Instead, there is evidence that as the stock market declined, they actively added cash to fund purchases of more stocks.

 

  CNBC June 12, 2020

Method of Comparison

After downloading stock data from Robintrack, which aggregated RH trades across all account owners, Professor Welch found that while it’s true that Robinhood investors have been attracted to “some rather odd stocks,” these shares are not Robinhood users’ largest holdings. Instead, the average Robinhood portfolio “was a lot more ordinary.”  He then applied the Fama and French model to create a benchmark to measure performance against. Walsh broke down the significantly different styles within the holdings to capture size and value. He used their calculated weights and applied the weighting to a merged Value and S&P 500 portfolio. This is not a perfect measure but creates a reasonable benchmark of the full RH portfolio.

This is where naysayers may have to watch who they sneer at. The Robinhood portfolio, based on the collective wisdom of their cohorts, did not underperform. The alphas were positive, and despite the very short sample period, it is viewed as statistically significant at a respectable +1.3% per month.

What Is the Fama and French Three Factor Model?
The Fama and French Three-Factor Model (or the Fama French Model for short) is an asset pricing model developed in 1992 that expands on the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) by adding size risk and value risk factors to the market risk factor in CAPM. This model considers the fact that value and small-cap stocks outperform markets on a regular basis. By including these two additional factors, the model adjusts for this outperforming tendency, which is thought to make it a better tool for evaluating manager performance.
Investopedia

 

CNBC, June 15, 2020

What Robinhood Traders are Doing

It is not uncommon for veterans in any discipline to poke fun at newcomers that do things differently. This usually changes if the new way is more successful than the more accepted old way. When it comes to people’s money, this is doubly true. There are 13 million primarily young or new Robinhood self-directed investors. They have been stereotyped as unsophisticated followers who have yet to move out of their parent’s house and are throwing away their COVID-19 stimulus check in the markets. There may be some among the 13 million who fit this description. However, data supports the idea that as a whole, the performance of this group is quite admirable and should not be scorned.

On average, those pulling the trigger on trades through the Robinhood app performed well; they earned positive alpha versus cash, the overall market, and even the weighted Fama-French factor model.  This simple two-variable model served as the proxy for the investment performance of small retail investors throughout the app trading universe. It will be interesting to see if the model vs. actual experience holds this level of performance over time. One variable during the measurement period with hard to assess influence is the timing of government stimulus checks, this may have impacted investible assets while the market was at a low for the year. Another variable is individuals out of work or working remotely during this period, they may have had more opportunity than normal to research and study some of the high potential names found in the 5% of their portfolio. Anecdotally, as a resource, Channelchek experienced a threefold increase in activity during 2020. A full 25% of that activity is from visitors 25-34 years-of-age accessing company research, articles, and other helpful content. More time to explore and solid resources once reserved for large institutions may also be a contributor to performance results.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Register for Access to Channelchek Premium and Channelchek Emails to Keep Your Fundamental Knowledge and Awareness of High Potential Offerings on Par With Your Peers.   Free Registration

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has a maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meetings intrigue you here.

 

Sources:

“Retail Raw: Wisdom of the Robinhood Crowd and the Covid Crisis”

Robinhood Traders Nailed the Market Bottom

Kramer Thinks Wall St Pros May Be Playing a Game With Amateur Robinhood Traders

Robinhood Risky Trading

Bloomberg Intelligence

 

*Robintrack, a website that provided updates on retail stock demand using Robinhood’s public application programming interface, was forced to shut in early August after the data feed was cut.

Year-Over-Year Performance at the End of Q3

 

A Peek at Stock Market Performance as We Enter 2020’s Final Round

 

If you looked at the stock market major index levels on 12/31 and then not again until 9/30, you’d think not much has happened — boring
year
. Despite the overall market’s rise since the beginning of the second quarter, two major indexes are essentially where they were at the beginning of 2020. The S&P 500 is up 5.57%, while the Dow Industrials is down .91%. The extreme outlier is the Nasdaq Composite with its high weighting of tech stocks; it’s up 24% going into the last quarter of the year.

Who’s Ahead?

Among the non-tech big winners last quarter are home builders. Builders have benefited from low rate mortgages, moves away from metropolitan areas, and a growing need for more home workspace. This, of course, is related to the pandemic and, to a lesser extent, riots. Currently, there is a historic shortage of new and existing homes for sale. An August 19 article in Forbes magazine recommends that with large home builder stocks up from 22% to 172%, they may be overvalued. Forbes contributor Richard Suttmeier writes: “You can be long, homebuilders, when their P/E ratios are 8 and lower. Today the P/E ratios are between 11.16 and 13.68.” An increased cost of lumber and other forest products are also beginning to pull from builders’ expected net profits.

 

 

Tech favorites and growth stocks made exceptional moves upward, particularly the behemoths like Apple, which crossed the $2 trillion mark. This leaves the computer and smartphone maker bigger than the entire global markets (shares were up 27% during the 3rd quarter).

 

 

More on Markets

Other stocks that are way ahead are Zoom, an online communications company that was off most everyone’s radar at the beginning of the year, and Tesla, which people have argued for years, is overvalued. In August, Tesla reached a new high, which provided a market value of more than $400 billion. The shares almost doubled in the third quarter as both institutions and self-directed investors poured money in. Both stocks have been favorites among institutions, as well as self-directed investors, many of whom are new to trading stocks or have ramped up activity significantly this year.

New Contenders

Investors this year have also waved in shares of companies that are new to the public markets. A fresh example of this is shares of software companies Palantir Technologies and Asana, which started trading Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange, both turning in excellent initial results. Their successful entrance, along with others to the public markets, demonstrates how healthy the appetite for new issues remains this year, particularly as investors have favored technology and biotech companies.

The Economy

The economy has steadily improved since the initial pandemic shutdown. Although the pace of GDP growth is not what it was at the start of the year, there is movement back toward low unemployment, high production, and increased consumer spending.  These figures over the past six months have shown steady improvement, many times surprising on the positive side. They still remain far from where they were at the start of 2020.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve approved a shift in how it sets interest rates in the third quarter by signaling it would target low rates for years. This provides low operating costs to corporations with high debt. A more subtle tailwind for stocks is that the fixed income markets compete with the equity markets for investor dollars. Low rates make bonds less attractive, and the risk/return on select equities more appealing.

Fourth Quarter

COVID numbers in the U.S. continue to go down, and the number of states declaring they will not shut down their economy continues to rise. This points toward increased economic activity. The question, of course, is, has this already been factored into today’s equity valuations? In some sectors, like homebuilding, it may be. There is likely to be significant repositioning and rotation between industry sectors and cap weighting before the close of the year.

What may be most significant in the final round of 2020 is the Presidential election and overall election results. Over the next month and possibly longer, there will be projections, forecasts, and pundits declaring which party will have power and what that power means to the markets, sectors, and individual stocks. It may prove the most challenging quarter of 2020.

 

Suggested Reading:

Financial Markets Lifted Household Wealth to Record Levels

The Fed is Experimenting with Digital Money

COVID, Sex, and the Business Cycle

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

 

Sources:

Americans Want Homes, but There Have Rarely Been Fewer for Sale

Take profit on Home Building Stocks Now

These Stocks Have Rallied More Than 400% This Year

Why Tesla Was Left Out of the S&P 500

S&P Indices 9_30_2020

 

Photo Credit: www.attacktheback.com

Why Do Small-cap Stocks Outperform After a Major Election?

 

Equity Leadership Could Be Handed-Off to Small-Caps Post Election

 

The average return for small-cap stocks, the year following a presidential election, for the past 40 years, is 17.48%. Looking back, the least the Russell 2000 returned during these years was 2.03% (1981), the most 38.82% (2017). The major large-cap indexes don’t have this level of consistency, they also fall short in performance by a few full percentage points.  This begs the questions: Why would smaller companies outperform after a presidential election and more relevant, are they likely to outperform again next year?

Why the Outperformance?

After the people decide on who will be their President, there is a renewed focus on domestic issues that had a reduced priority during the Presidential race. The noise and distraction of political gamesmanship becomes severely reduced after the contest(s). Elected officials get back to their To-Do list. These lists usually include providing a positive environment for business and workers. For example: In 2021 we’re likely to see work on tax and trade policies, health care reform, hearings on big tech oversight, and overall creating an environment where jobs are created. 

Large multinational companies don’t benefit as directly as smaller companies in the U.S. are more likely to feel an immediate positive impact that focusing on domestic issues has since they have a much higher percentage of their business conducted in North America.

But now there’s a growing chorus on Wall Street calling for a leadership change. Earnings drive stock prices long term, and small-cap earnings estimates are improving faster than those for large-caps. Add cheaper valuations and the relative reward for small-caps looks even better. – Barron, August 14, 2020

 

Will the Streak Continue in 2021?

Market cap weighted indexes like the S&P 500 and tech heavy indexes like the NASDAQ 100 are heavily influenced by FAANG stocks. These stocks have had an amazing ride in 2020 because of  lockdowns. Their strength and their increased weighting created a strong updraft for these two indexes which are positive on the year. By contrast, the popular index of America’s small-cap companies, the Russell 2000, is down near 12% YTD. So, in addition to four decades of market history placing odds on the side of small domestic companies with less overseas exposure, small-cap stocks have five weeks before the election and are more attractively priced after falling out of favor. 

The run-up we’ve had in big tech and other large-caps is part of a cycle and won’t last forever. Any possible rotation into small-caps was derailed with COVID’s impact and the distractions of an election year which included impeaching a U.S. President. The potential for outperformance on those facts is strong, add to it a weakening dollar and companies with  a high percentage of their business dealings done domestically also face a tailwind.

Some strategists think 2021 might finally be the time for the Davids of the market to start outperforming the massive Goliaths of tech. – CNN Business, September 18, 2020

 

In addition to the post-election year probabilities of this group outperforming, the odds are also in their favor as the recession ends. In an interview Michael Binger, President of Gradient Investments, had on CNBC’s Trading Nation said: “When you look historically, as the economy comes out of a recession — and we’re certainly going to be in a recession after the second quarter — small-caps have outperformed large caps in nine out of the last 10 economic downturns aafterthe economy came out of the downturns. So, I think you have history on your side.”

Take-Away

Is outperformance by small-cap stocks a slam-dunk next year? The investment markets never provide a future slam-dunk possibility without caveats. There are a lot of other moving parts to consider. Analysis of the markets do, however, provide higher and lower probability of outcomes. Armed with the history of this sector in post-election years, post-recession years, with a weakening dollar, and after large-caps ran so far, I’d place this scenario in the perfect storm category for small-caps to recover relative lost performance ground in the coming year. And, possibly much more than just lost ground.

 

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

 

Suggested Reading:

U.S. Debt as a Percentage of GDP

Small-cap Stocks are Looking Better for Investors

Investment Barriers Once Seen as Insurmountable are Falling Fast

 

Enjoy Premium Channelchek Content at No Cost

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

 

Sources:

Investing in Small-Caps after an Election Year, CNN

Pick up Some Values in Small-Cap Stocks, Kiplinger

Small-Cap Stocks Could Keep Rising

Small-caps Historically Outperform After Recessions

Small-cap and Emerging Market Favored in Post COVID Era

The Most Popular Small-cap Index Isn’t the Best, Morningstar

Stock Market Returns

Russell 2000 History

The Role of Microcap in Tech Future Should Not be Forgotten

The FAANG Stocks Are Converging and Cracks Are Showing

 

The so-called FAANG stocks have dominated the technology sector in recent years. FAANG stocks refer to the stocks of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google.  Each company has its origin in and is known for, a different component of the technology industry.  Facebook is known for social media. Apple is known for hardware. Amazon is known for retail. Netflix is known for content streaming. Google is known for its search engine.

A funny thing has been happening in recent years; the FAANG companies have begun to converge and act like competitors, often copying each other.  Amazon began making smart speakers (Alexa), so Apple (Homepod) and Google (Home) followed suit.  Netflix began producing original movies and shows, and so did Apple (Apple TV+), Amazon (Prime Video), and Google (Google Play).  Facebook expanded into other social media sites (Instagram) and messaging sites (Messenger), so Google purchased YouTube and Apple expanded iTunes. Apple began making smartphone accessories, so Google purchased Fitbit. All five companies have moved into cloud services.

The Overbite of the Companies

Today all FAANG companies have at least a foot in all aspects of technology, whether it be hardware, software, social media, media distribution, original content, search engines, or retail. In many ways, these founding fathers of modern technology are becoming more and more similar.  And at the heart of all operations are advertisement dollars.  In essence, they all want to control how a person accesses information and to sell visiting “eyeballs” to advertisers.  That includes controlling the hardware devices (phones, computers, smart speakers, televisions), the social apps (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, iTunes), help apps (Google Maps, Uber, Weather apps), and original content (Netflix, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime).

 

 

The company that controls the eyeballs controls the advertising dollar.  That’s why smart home speakers were sold so cheaply when they came out.  That’s why companies are investing large dollars in speech recognition software. That’s why FAANG companies sell devices to connect televisions to the internet. That’s why companies are paying up to acquire the latest, hottest technology companies. The battle to acquire TikTok’s U.S. operations between Oracle and Microsoft/Walmart may have well been those company’s attempts to join the inner circle of technology giants.  And, before you say “what was Walmart doing trying to buy a tech company,” remember that Amazon has been eating into Walmart’s retail operations.

Out for Blood

So, if these tech giants are headed for an all-out war for the advertisement dollar, how can we handicap their odds?  Facebook and Netflix seem to be the odd men out, checking off the fewest categories to attract eyeballs. Facebook is strong in social media, but behind the game in other areas of technology.  Netflix seems especially vulnerable given steps taken by the other tech giants and other media companies (Disney, Viacom, Universal, Fox).  In fact, if AAG wasn’t such a bad acronym, Facebook and Netflix would probably not be included in the grouping.  Not that Facebook and Netflix won’t do fine on its own in its sectors, but it’s hard to envision them as major technology companies involved in all aspects of technology unless they were to merge with a company like Oracle, Microsoft, or IBM.

New-FAANGled Opportunity?

On the other hand, there is one other component that we have not talked about yet – automobiles.  If computers, phones, televisions, and smart speakers are important access points to the advertising dollar, what about cars? Perhaps the car manufacturers of the future will be paid for product placement when drivers make requests for the nearest restaurant, gas station, etc.  Automobile computers could become especially important in the age of driverless vehicles. And who is the most innovative car manufacturer?  Perhaps the FAANG group will become the TAAG group someday. 

The technology industry moves fast.  IBM dominated the space in the 1950s and 1960s and is now an also-ran.  Microsoft dominated the 1970s and 1980s and is on the outside looking in.  The next great tech company may not have even been formed yet.  All it takes is a great idea.  That’s where small microcap companies come into play.  The investment environment has never been riper for new companies to develop and hit it big.  At worse, a successful small company may be bought out by a giant looking to maintain their position, rewarding early investors for their foresight.

 

Suggested Reading:

Fear of Missing Out on Owning the Next Apple

Investors Should Pay More Attention to ATM Offerings

Ecommerce Adapts While in-Person Retail Struggles

 

Enjoy Premium Channelchek Content at No Cost

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has a maximum capacity of 100 online investors. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

Sources:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/22/apple-amazon-and-google-will-emerge-as-winners-gene-munster.html, Stephanie Landsman, CNBC, September 22, 2020

https://towardsdatascience.com/who-is-winning-google-amazon-facebook-or-apple-45728660473, Rodrigo Salvaterra, Towards Data Science, February 10, 2020

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-faang-companies-are-starting-to-turn-against-one-another-2017-09-18, Jeff Reeves, MarketWatch, September 18, 2019

Small-cap Stocks are Looking Better for Investors

 

Small-Cap Stocks Have Shifted into Outperformance Mode

 

The behavior of drivers I witnessed while driving south from New York to Florida after Labor Day reminded me of reactions prevalent among market participants. Behaviors that literally drive travelers; from the professional (truck driver) to the guy in the sports car, or the family cruising in the SUV, also impact investor behaviors. There are people in the markets and on the road,  especially professionals, that always seem to know things first and how to respond. There are also impatient drivers and investors, those that want fast results, and safer people just trying to be prudent. They’re all on the same road, but their level of expertise and reason for being there is different, so is their ability to change when needed.

My personal driving style is risk-averse; I just want to arrive alive. My normal pace is about 7 miles per hour above the posted speed limit. This is often a little slower than those around me, but not so slow as to annoy others on the road. During this most recent road trip, while just south of  Annapolis, there was a significant number of cars on the road, yet the pace was brisk. We were all making good headway (just as investors in large-cap, especially tech, have over most of the summer had been). Like these investors, I let my guard down with everyone else who had grown comfortable with the velocity that we were moving. I was startled from my comfort when a car came past exceeding the average speed by 15-20 mph. I then noticed that a few of the cars around me increased their own pace.  People are inclined to increase their risky behavior when they see others less cautious and benefitting from it. As far as I can tell, the truck drivers didn’t change their behavior.  As professionals, they learned from experience and training what was best for them. A few miles past where the cars sped up, I saw a number of vehicles, mainly trucks exiting the interstate. This got my attention, and I considered doing the same as these drivers are often more in the know than the occasional vacationer like myself. Without a known alternative route to take me where I wanted to go, I decided not to.

It did not take long before I realized why the professional drivers exited. The car that startled me as it raced past earlier had just gotten into an accident. It was left overturned with steam coming from what I assume was the front.  The cars around me quickly slowed their pace to the speed limit. I reduced my speed as well; I also lowered the volume on my music and placed my hands firmly at 10 & 2 o’clock on the steering wheel. Seeing what could happen caused us all to be safer drivers. For some of us, that lasted about ten miles. After that I saw people begin to resume their speed. For others, they shook off the reality of the possibility of crashing sooner and resumed their pace quickly. This wreck wasn’t the only one I witnessed on my 1200-mile drive. Each time I saw caution temporarily increase among those around me. The stock market has behaved the same way throughout 2020. On two occasions we’ve experienced severe and sudden downturns; after each, people have quickly resumed their pace.

Stock Market Highway

Leading up to the late February 2020 record-level highs in the major indexes, we saw many investors speeding into the market. Tech stocks were especially popular, but many sectors had continued strength as we ignored warnings of an overextended market, sorted out pandemic risks, and the idea that the pace may be dangerous. The markets did come screeching to a halt after President’s Day  as some participants exited out of equities and others took alternative routes to stocks most likely to benefit from a response to the pandemic.

The 30% crash ending in March caused many to head to the sidelines as the reality of what could happen became reality. Some of these investors stayed cautious and missed opportunities as the market rose again. Others pivoted to companies that eventually proved to be the darlings of the situation. This included big tech, pharmaceuticals, and online retail.

 

Source TradingView.com – NASDAQ 100 E-Mini as Proxy for NASDAQ 100 Stocks (1 year)

In the past few weeks, these darlings, the companies that had been speeding the most after the earlier crash, have hit another rough patch. During the last 14 days (Since September 4) the NASDAQ 100 is down 5.9% as investors move money out and find different avenues.

Taking an Exit

On September 2, thanks to tech stocks and other COVID related plays, the large-cap indexes had reached a new all-time high. In the short time since then, they have given up more than 10% (NASDAQ 100). Although this rapid selloff is not currently as large as the 30% route in March, it was rapid and exceeds the psychological 10% level that investors react to.

The question now is, is this a pause before large tech investors begin “bargain” hunting, or have they shifted their focus. Chart comparisons for popular indexes may be able to answer this. If the pattern holds, it looks like investors may have exited the large-cap tech highway and found an alternative route in small-cap investments. This is starting to become visible when comparing major index results over the past 14 days, and money flows among ETFs.

While the three most quoted large-cap indices are down over the past two weeks, the small-cap stocks, which weren’t getting much attention during the race to the new peak, have significantly outperformed as money was taken off the table in the high flying large caps and placed instead in companies with lower market caps. This may prove to be a smart detour as the economy gets on a stronger footing.

 

 

From Friday, September 4 through Friday, September 18, the Russell 2000 index showed positive results while the DOW 30, S&P 500, and NASDAQ 100 were down meaningfully.

 

 

Fund flows into ETFs with performance that tracks small-cap indices have outpaced flows into large-cap funds. This change suggests that market participants selling out of large-cap have not left the market. They have just adjusted the road they believe is now safer and could offer a better return.

 

Shifting Gears

The small-cap companies represented in the Russell 2000 rely less on profits from doing business overseas than the large-cap indexes. As the U.S. pace of recovery is strong, it makes sense to look domestically for value. Larger corporations with stable and stronger financials were the “flight-to-quality” trade early in the pandemic. Unwinding these trades also has the effect of cash moving back into a more diversified position.  Domestic small-caps also have less international exposure, they are more shielded from sovereign and other geopolitical risks. The U.S. relationship with China, Brexit concerns, and a Presidential election may complicate global investing. This bodes well for companies that primarily have their operations in North America.

Though far from the “best-ever” economic levels we saw pre-pandemic, data has been improving. The unemployment rate is at 8.4%, this is much better than what many economists had forecasted for the remainder of the year, manufacturing has also expanded, and confidence is high

Take-Away

The relative increase in small-cap stock interes shows that investors think the run-up in companies that benefit from social distancing are low on gas.

Small-cap stocks are providing somewhat of a refuge from the rout that tore through equity markets this month. This signals that investors see brighter days ahead for the economy as pandemic lockdowns are lifted.

Not unlike highway driving, market movement is the cumulative effects of all the behaviors of those involved. It makes sense that there are some investors who have already begun leaving the large-cap companies that had treated them well and are now taking other routes. The conditions are changing, it may be time for investors to take it off autopilot and adjust once again for what may be called for.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Suggested Reading:

Do Analyst Price Targets Matter?

Fear of Missing the Next Apple

A Virtually Perfect Time to be in This Business

 

Enjoy Premium Channelchek Content at No Cost

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has a maximum capacity of 100 online investors. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

 

Sources:

Nasdaq, tech stocks coming out of correction

Small Caps Emerge Relatively Unscathed in Megatech Bludgeoning

ETF.com

 

Do Analyst Price Targets Matter?

 

Half the Analysts Following Apple Have a Buy Rating Even Though the Stock is Above Their Target

 

The shares of AAPL have surged above $500 per share after having risen 70% year to date.  Most of the surge has come since the company announced a four-for-one stock split on July 30th.  Since the stock split announcement, the shares of AAPL have risen approximately 30%.  Sixty-one percent of the analysts following the stock have a positive rating on the shares of AAPL despite the shares trading above price targets.  The highest price target is $520 per share, and the average price target is $430 per share.  Whether or not analysts following AAPL raise their price targets or lower their ratings remains to be seen.  The current disparity, however, raises a bigger picture question: do analyst price targets matter at all?   In theory, an analyst’s price target is an indication of where an analyst thinks the stock will trade at a future date (usually twelve months).  As such, the difference between an analyst’s price target and the current stock price is a measure of how much an analyst believes the stock is under or overvalued.  In reality, price targets do not fully reflect an analyst’s sentiments regarding a stock for reasons discussed below. 

Bull Case (price targets are useful)

Price targets are regulated and can not be arbitrary. Following the collapse of Enron in 2002, regulators added additional restrictions regarding the use of price targets.  FINRA rules 2241 and 2241 require that price targets have a “reasonable basis” and include a disclosure of risks that may impede achievement of the price target.  Most analysts will justify their price targets mathematically, perhaps by applying a price-to-earnings ratio, a sum-of-the-parts calculation, or a discounted cash flow estimate.

Price targets imply direction more than magnitude.  As mentioned earlier, price targets represent an analyst’s estimated value of a stock.  That value, however, is not static.  It may be based on many factors that are constantly changing, including company fundamentals, its competitive environment, overall stock market conditions, interest rates, and many other factors.  In theory, an analyst should be changing his or her price target every day if not continuously.  This, of course, is impractical.  As such, investors should pay more attention to the direction of price targets, especially when they are updated.  A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo and Boston College found that analyst target price revisions are more accurate predictors of future stock price performance than the actual price target.

Price targets lag behind changes in fundamental company developments but will adjust. Analysts will typically review their price targets whenever they write a report.  They will take into account all changes that have occurred since their last report.  However, they will probably not make a change to their price target unless the change is significant.  If a drop in interest rates warrants raising a price target by $0.50, they may decide to wait until conditions warrant a larger change.  Consequently, price target levels typically lag minor changes in company fundamentals or other data points.

Bear Case

The analyst just raises their targets when they are hit.  Although analysts tend to think of price targets as a way to communicate their feelings on a stock, some investors and traders view them as a price limit for buying the stock.  Investors and traders get frustrated when analysts simply raise their price targets when stock prices reach their target. The chart below shows the stock price of Apple shares (yellow line graph) and the median twelve-month price target for Apple (white line graph).  As you can see, the two lines mirror each other, with the gaps growing during periods when the stock price has stagnated.  As indicated earlier, this may be a function of the fact that analysts are not constantly changing their targets, instead of waiting until the fundamental change is large enough to make a major move.  Often, such a move occurs when a company releases earnings or other news.  Of course, such an announcement often is associated with an increase in the company’s stock price.  Analysts try to stay ahead of the stock price, but that is not always possible when there are sudden moves.

 

 

Price targets are sticky on the downside.  Price targets typically increase over time.  If an analyst used a P/E ratio to set a price target, the price target would increase each year, assuming the company is growing earnings.  Occasionally, company fundamentals or other factors deteriorate, causing an analyst to lower high price targets.  This is certainly true in situations where a company makes a major negative announcement.  It is less true when a company’s fundamentals deteriorate slowly.  It is not unusual for an analyst’s price target to become outdated under such a scenario.

Conclusion

Price targets are a second tool (in addition to a stock’s rating) for analysts to communicate feelings about a stock’s value.  Price targets can become outdated when a stock’s price moves quickly.  However, that does not mean it is not important.  Investors and traders need to be cognizant of the limitations of using price targets for making investment decisions when making decisions regarding buying and selling stocks.  Price target changes may provide more information that the price target level.  Often, the magnitude of the change or the reasons behind the change tell a more complete picture.

Suggested Reading:

Investors Should Pay More Attention to ATM Offerings

Investment Journalists Would Make Horrific Fund Managers

Fear of Missing Out on the Next Apple

Enjoy Premium Channelchek Content at No Cost

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

Sources:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/wall-street-analyst-stock-price-targets-51561597085, Al Root, Barron’s, June 27, 2019

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/08/03/2013/why-price-targets-matter, James Deporre, Real Money, August 3, 2013

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investor-education/what-every-investor-should-know-about-analysts-price-targets/article627565/, John Heinzl, The Globe and Mail, March 29, 2012

https://financialpost.com/investing/analysts-target-prices-rarely-accurate-global-study-finds#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20find%20that%20analyst%20target,subject%20to%20conflicts%20of%20interest.%E2%80%9D, David Pett, Financial Post, March 07, 2013

https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/2241, FINRA

https://osboncapital.com/price-targets-are-obsolete-why-are-they-still-a-thing/, John Osbon, Osbon Capital Management, September 12, 2018

SPAC Activity Accelerating in 2020

 

SPAC Candidates, Blank Checks, and Leaving More to Investors

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan knows a lot about being a candidate. The former Speaker of The House was Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential running mate. He won elections for The House of Representatives eight times by defeating challenger Jeffrey C. Thomas in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections. In the 2008 election, Ryan defeated Democrat Marge Krupp. He just announced he’s creating a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The IPO shell will be among the latest in the torrent of SPACS popping up this year. Paul Ryan will soon be aggressively looking for an acquisition candidate as part of his newly formed business.

 

Organization of the SPAC

Ryan is expected to serve as chairman of the soon to be formed Executive Network Partnering Corp. (ENPC).  ENPC will look to attract roughly $300 million in an initial public offering (based on demand).

 

The new vehicle’s ticker symbol will be ENPC. Relative to traditional shell IPO vehicles, ENPC will provide longer-term incentives for its stakeholders and scaled-down fees for underwriters. Founders of ENPC won’t be permitted to sell any of their shares for three years after any merger. Similar vehicles allow for sale when shares trade above a certain level or after a year from closing.

 

SEC Filing

ENPC is expected to file documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the coming days. This filing will outline the structure specifics. They’ve chosen the acronym CAPS to refer to the vehicle whose terms are supposed to be more investor-focused. The underlying reason for choosing “CAPS” is it is a palindrome for SPAC and can mean “capital which aligns and partners with a sponsor.”

 

 

More Competitive

Management competence and what their experience brings to getting a worthwhile deal completed is the main component investors look for when investing in this form of IPO. Terms are also high on the list of what should be analyzed before any monetary commitment.

 

Typically, SPAC founders are awarded shares equivalent to roughly 25% of what is raised when the initial IPO closes. As you might imagine, that becomes an above-average payday for their efforts. Under the expected ENPC terms, Ryan and the other creators will have the right to buy roughly 5% of the shares and then reap another 20% of the stock appreciation if share price increases by more than 10%.

 

They also plan to slash fees to Wall Street banking organizations. Evercore Inc. is the sole underwriter of the blank-check fund. They agreed to be paid 1% of the size of the vehicle; this is half of the usual 2% upfront of other SPACs. When a merger deal is struck, the same underwriters typically receive another 3.5%. With Paul Ryan’s SPAC, Evercore will get a separate, smaller advisory payment. ENPC is free to work with other advisers on any subsequent merger deal.

 

 

The Year of the SPAC

So far, in 2020, 75 new SPACs have been listed, with a total raised adding to $29.9 billion.  This is more than twice what was raised during all of last year. There is no telling when or why this pace may begin to slow, but over the past eight months, SPACs have already attained the highest volume ever in one year.  They have accounted for approximately 43% of IPO volume in 2020.

 

Earlier this Summer hedge fund billionaire William Ackman raised $4 billion for the largest SPAC ever created.  Last month, health-care-services provider MultiPlan, Inc. announced it was merging with a blank-check company run by Michael Klein in the largest transaction ever at $11 billion.  

 

Take-Away

The appetite for investors eligible to participate in a SPAC is still very high. The sheer number of “blank check” companies being formed is starting to push their founders to provide more to investors and negotiate better deals with banks and other service providers and consultants. “Big names,” including Paul Ryan, who sits on the board of FOX Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal and other large media outlets, help bring attention to their intended deals.

 

Suggested Reading:

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPAC) Attracting Investors

Can AI Skyborg Technology Create Unpredictable Yet Consistent Military Aircraft?

Are Dual Class Stocks a Mistake for Investors?

 

Each event in our popular Virtual Road Shows Series has maximum capacity of 100 investors online. To take part, listen to and perhaps get your questions answered, see which virtual investor meeting intrigues you here.

 

Sources:

Will 2020 Go Down as the Year of the SPAC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan

Paul Ryan Becomes Board Member of FOX News Corp.

Former
House Speaker Ryan to Chair Blank Check Company

Wall Street Banks Are Cashing in on the Boom in Blank-Check Companies