Showing posts with label Market capitalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Market capitalization. Show all posts

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Why Is North America's Equity Market Underperforming?

Authored by Steven Vanelli via Knowledge Leaders Capital blog,


On a relative basis, compared to the developed world, North American stocks peaked on November 23, 2016, and have since underperformed by about 4% (in USD).



In the charts below, we compare the relative performance of our KLSU North America Index to various economic variables. Our KLSU North America Index captures the top 85% of the market cap in North America, is a market cap weighted index and USD based. Our KLSU DM Index captures the top 85% of the market cap of all 22 developed countries. It also is a market cap weighted index and USD based.


1. Auto sales have rolled over recently, having peaked at 18.05 million units in December 2016. The current run rate is 16.69 million units.



2. New house sales have stalled out. New house sales peaked in March at 638,000 units. July figures were released today showing sales have fallen to a level of 571,000 units.



3. Core inflation has slipped significantly lately, dropping from an annualized rate of 2.26% in January to a current level of 1.7%.



4. Driving the drop in inflation is the recent lower revision to compensation, which in turn caused a big revision down in corporate unit labor costs.



5. The US budget deficit is rolling over and beginning to widen again. After peaking at 2.21% of GDP in February 2016, the annualized budget deficit is now over 1% wider at 3.32% of GDP.



6. Lastly, it appears consumer confidence is waning, helping explain the weak retail figures we’ve seen.



*  *  *


ZH: But apart from that, BTFD!

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

"It Won't Be Long Now" - David Stockman Warns "Amazon Is The New Tech Crash"

Authored by David Stockman via The Daily Reckoning,


It won’t be long now. During the last 31 months the stock market mania has rapidly narrowed to just a handful of shooting stars.


At the forefront has been Amazon.com, Inc., which saw its stock price double from $285 per share in January 2015 to $575 by October of that year. It then doubled again to about $1,000 in the 21 months since.


By contrast, much of the stock market has remained in flat-earth land. For instance, those sections of the stock market that are tethered to the floundering real world economy have posted flat-lining earnings, or even sharp declines, as in the case of oil and gas.


Needless to say, the drastic market narrowing of the last 30 months has been accompanied by soaring price/earnings (PE) multiples among the handful of big winners. In the case of the so-called FAANGs + M (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft), the group’s weighted average PE multiple has increased by some 50%.


The degree to which the casino’s speculative mania has been concentrated in the FAANGs + M can also be seen by contrasting them with the other 494 stocks in the S&P 500. The market cap of the index as a whole rose from $17.7 trillion in January 2015 to some $21.2 trillion at present, meaning that the FAANGs + M account for about 40% of the entire gain.


Stated differently, the market cap of the other 494 stocks rose from $16.0 trillion to $18.1 trillion during that 30-month period. That is, 13% versus the 82% gain of the six super-momentum stocks.


Moreover, if this concentrated $1.4 trillion gain in a handful of stocks sounds familiar that’s because this rodeo has been held before. The Four Horseman of Tech (Microsoft, Dell, Cisco and Intel) at the turn of the century saw their market cap soar from $850 billion to $1.65 trillion or by 94% during the manic months before the dotcom peak.


At the March 2000 peak, Microsoft’s PE multiple was 60X, Intel’s was 50X and Cisco’s hit 200X. Those nosebleed valuations were really not much different than Facebook today at 40X, Amazon at 190X and Netflix at 217X.


The truth is, even great companies do not escape drastic over-valuation during the blow-off stage of bubble peaks. Accordingly, two years later the Four Horseman as a group had shed $1.25 trillion or 75% of their valuation.


More importantly, this spectacular collapse was not due to a meltdown of their sales and profits. Like the FAANGs +M today, the Four Horseman were quasi-mature, big cap companies that never really stopped growing.


Now I’m targeting the very highest-flyer of the present bubble cycle, Amazon.


Just as the NASDAQ 100 doubled between October 1998 and October 1999, and then doubled again by March 2000, AMZN is in the midst of a similar speculative blow-off.


Not to be forgotten, however, is that one year after the March 2000 peak the NASDAQ 100 was down by 70%, and it ultimately bottomed 82% lower in September 2002. I expect no less of a spectacular collapse in the case of this cycle’s equivalent shooting star.


In fact, even as its stock price has tripled during the last 30 months, AMZN has experienced two sharp drawdowns of 28% and 12%, respectively. Both times it plunged to its 200-day moving average in a matter of a few weeks.


A similar drawdown to its 200-day moving average today would result in a double-digit sell-off. But when — not if — the broad market plunges into a long overdue correction the ultimate drop will exceed that by many orders of magnitude.



Amazon’s stock has now erupted to $1,000per share, meaning that its market cap is lodged in the financial thermosphere (highest earth atmosphere layer). Its implied PE multiple of 190X can only be described as blatantly absurd.


After all, Amazon is 24 years-old, not a start-up. It hasn’t invented anything explosively new like the iPhone or personal computer. Instead, 91% of its sales involve sourcing, moving, storing and delivering goods. That’s a sector of the economy that has grown by just 2.2% annually in nominal dollars for the last decade, and for which there is no macroeconomic basis for an acceleration.


Yes, AMZN is taking share by leaps and bounds. But that’s inherently a one-time gain that can’t be capitalized in perpetuity at 190X. And it’s a source of “growth” that is generating its own pushback as the stronger elements of the brick and mortar world belatedly pile on the e-commerce bandwagon.


Wal-Mart’s e-commerce sales, for example, have exploded after its purchase of Jet.com last year — with sales rising by 63% in the most recent quarter.


Moreover, Wal-Mart has finally figured out the free shipments game and has upped its e-commerce offering from 10 million to 50 million items just in the past year.


Wal-Mart is also tapping for e-commerce fulfillment duty in its vast logistics system — including its 147 distribution centers, a fleet of 6,200 trucks and a global sourcing system which is second to none.


In this context, even AMZN’s year-over-year sales growth of 22.6% in Q1 2017 doesn’t remotely validate the company’s bubblicious valuation — especially not when AMZN’s already razor thin profit margins are weakening, not expanding.


Based on these basic realities, Jeff Bezos will never make up with volume what he is losing in margin on each and every shipment.


The Amazon business model is fatally flawed. It’s only a matter of the precise catalyst that will trigger the realization in the casino that this is another case of the proverbial naked emperor.


Needless to say, I do not think AMZN is a freakish outlier. It’s actually the lens through which the entire stock market should be viewed because the whole enchilada is now in the grips of a pure mania.


Stated differently, the stock market is no longer a discounting mechanism nor even a weighing machine. It’s become a pure gambling hall.


So Bezos’ e-commerce business strategy is that of a madman — one made mad by the fantastically false price signals emanating from a casino that has become utterly unhinged owing to 30 years of Bubble Finance policies at the Fed and its fellow central banks around the planet.


Indeed, the chart below leaves nothing to the imagination. Since 2012, Amazon stock price has bounded upward in nearly exact lock-step with the massive balance sheet expansion of the world’s three major central banks.



At the end of the day, the egregiously overvalued Amazon is the prime bubble stock of the current cycle. What the Fed has actually unleashed is not the healthy process of creative destruction that Amazon’s fanboys imagine.


Instead, it embodies a rogue business model and reckless sales growth machine that is just one more example of destructive financial engineering, and still another proof that monetary central planning fuels economic decay, not prosperity.


Amazon’s stock is also the ultimate case of an utterly unsustainable bubble. When the selling starts and the vast horde of momentum traders who have inflated it relentlessly in recent months make a bee line for the exits, the March 2000 dotcom crash will seem like a walk in the park.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Global Stocks Soared $1.5 Trillion This Week - Now 102% Of World GDP

Thanks, it seems, to a few short words from Janet Yellen, the world"s stock markets added over $1.5 trillion to wealthy people"s net worth this week, sending global market cap to record highs.


The value of global equity markets reached a record high $76.28 trillion yesterday, up a shocking 18.6% since President Trump was elected. This is the same surge in global stocks that was seen as the market front-ran QE2 and QE3.


This was the biggest spike in global equity markets since 2016.




 For the first time since Dec 2007, the market value of global equity markets is greater than the world"s GDP...



h/t @Schuldensuehner


Of course - the big question is - how long can "they" keep this dream alive?




President Trump hopes a little longer...


Friday, June 23, 2017

The Incredible Shrinking Relative Float Of Treasury Bonds

Via Global Macro Monitor blog,


Lots of hand wringing these days about the flattening yield curve.  We still maintain our position that the signal from the bond market is significantly distorted due to the global central bank intervention (QE) into the bond markets.   See here and here.


Most of what is happening with the U.S. yield curve is technical.  Sure, traders can get a wild hair up their arse,  believing the economy is slowing and try and game duration by punting in the cash or futures markets.  Given the small relative float of the U.S. Treasury bond market, however,  it doesn’t take much buying to move yields.  In the words of economists,  the supply curve of outstanding Treasuries is very inelastic.


This is illustrated in the following chart. The combined market cap of just Apple and Amazon at today’s close is larger than the entire the float of outstanding Treasury notes and bonds that mature from 2027-2027.  We define float (US$1.16 trillion)  as total Treasury securities (2027-2047) outstanding (US$1.73 trillion) less Fed holdings (US$575 billion).



Now consider you started the year with, say, a hypothetical $3 billion portfolio of Amazon, Apple, and Treasury notes and bonds, each with a 33.3 percent weighting.


Given the rise of Apple and Amazon stock prices just this year, the current under weight in your Treasury position relative to the start of year would force an additional purchase of US$226 million of bonds to get back to the 33.33 percent weighting.  


The allocation effect of a stock bull market or bubble on the bond markets can be a powerful source of demand.


This is a classic case of a positive feedback loop between two markets.  The allocation effect and the increased demand for bonds lowers the interest rate making stocks fundamentally more attractive as the rate to discount corporate cash flows declines.  This drives up stock prices ergo another allocation effect on bonds.


Here’s to hoping that in the next decade we, and the policy makers, don’t look back at this period with regret realizing we got the signal from the yield curve entirely wrong.  


In hindsight, it is always so obvious.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Small-Caps Sharply Underperform S&P As EPS Downgrade Concerns Grow

As discussed over the weekend, despite the seemingly endless retail euphoria which has plowed a record amount of cash YTD into broad market ETFs, the latest CFTC data showed that for the first time since the election speculators turned net negative on the Russell 2000 after hitting an all time high as recently as December.


 



Overnight, SocGen"s Andrew Lapthorne alto pointed out the recent "re-rating" of small caps, and in a note titled "US smallcaps suffer in the face of increasing EPS downgrades", observes that whilst the S&P 500 is only slightly off its recent all time highs, the smaller cap Russell 2000 performance is looking more problematic.


Lapthorne says that the Russell 2000 was struggling prior to last year’s US election with many investors concerned by overvaluation, struggling profitability and excessively leveraged balance sheets.





This attitude almost changed overnight with the index rocketing 20% higher in the weeks after the election of Donald Trump, propelled higher through a combination of bullish Trumpenomics expectations but also a fair amount of short covering.



That the Russell 2000 is underperforming the S&P 500 is notable, particularly as it flies in the face of particularly strong small business survey data suggesting better times ahead.



Finally, it is also worth noting that whilst 2017 EPS forecasts for S&P 500 earnings have barely budged this year, Russell 2000 2017 EPS expectations are down 4%, which while hardly a disaster is worth keeping an eye on. His conclusion: "for all the reflation talk EPS momentum remains largely uninspiring."



Judging by the spec futures chart, hedge funds have clearly noticed the fundamental problems and have started to press the small cap index lower.


Furthermore, as shown in the EV/sales and EV/EBITDA charts below, if the correction in the RUT has indeed begun, there is a long way to go from here.