Junk Bond ETFs Have Rough Two Weeks: Deals Pulled, Outflows Rise

Submitted by Mish Shedlock

Volatility has returned, at least in the junk bond market. JNK, the Barclays High Yield Bond ETF, and HYG, the iShares High Yield Bond ETF, both had the steepest decline in three months. Is this another buy the dip opportunity, or is risk avoidance about to take hold?

Cracks Widen

Reuters reports U.S.Junk Bond Sector Ends Rough Week On Calmer Note.

Cracks in the red-hot U.S. high-yield bond market are starting to widen, with two junk-rated companies pulling their deals on Friday and U.S.-based high-yield funds suffering their second consecutive week of cash withdrawals.

“Folks have become super negative on risk all of a sudden,” said Greg Peters, managing director and senior portfolio manager at PGIM Fixed Income.

On Friday, coal producer Canyon Consolidated Resources became the second junk-rated company to pull a bond sale this week amid a bout of volatility in credit markets. NRG Energy pulled its junk bond offering on Thursday as spreads across the asset class widened sharply and the two main junk bond ETFs reached seven-month lows.

Bank of America Corp analysts said in a note on Friday that volatility in high-yield has been “driven primarily by a confluence of several meaningful and yet only loosely related events,” including the collapse of the Sprint Corp and T-Mobile U.S. Inc merger, the U.S. Justice Department’s challenges to the AT&T Inc and Time Warner Inc merger, a credit downgrade for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and other industry-specific news along with the potential for tax reform to be delayed.

The analysts also said the flatness of the yield curve has been hurting high yield, partly by hurting bank stocks, which benefit from a steeper yield curve that allows them to borrow cheaply, lend at higher rates and profit from the difference.

JNK Daily

HYG Daily

Another Dip Buying Opportunity?

The declines look meaningful, but if you crunch the numbers, the total decline over the past two weeks is just over one percent. Monthly charts make it appear as if nothing happened at all.

JNK Monthly

HYG Monthly

On a monthly basis, it"s hard to label these moves as "dips". Then again are things expected to rise forever?

Yield Curve

Analysts stated "flatness of the yield curve has been hurting high yield."Starting mid-2016, the ETFs rose 20 out of 23 months with the yield curve flattening throughout 2017.

Volatility Not Started

Volatility has not yet started, despite claims to the contrary.Is this the start of a meaningful decline?I do not know, nor does anyone else. But I do suspect that cracks will appear first in the credit markets.

A Frustrated David Einhorn Asks "Will The Market Cycle Never Turn?"

Just days after Third Point"s Dan Loeb took a victory lap in his latest letter to investors, boasting a 14.5% YTD performance, outperforming the S&P and virtually all of his peers, a decidedly more downcast letter was released today by Greenlight"s David Einhorn, who also had a good quarter, generating 6.2% in Q3, which brought his YTD return to 3.3% after a subpar first half. Yet despite the solid Q3 performance, Einhorn admits that "the market remains very challenging for value investing strategies, as growth stocks have continued to outperform value stocks. The persistence of this dynamic leads to questions regarding whether value investing is a viable strategy. The knee-jerk instinct is to respond that when a proven strategy is so exceedingly out of favor that its viability is questioned, the cycle must be about to turn around. Unfortunately, we lack such clarity. After years of running into the wind, we are left with no sense stronger than, “it will turn when it turns.”

Such an open-ended answer, however, is a problem for a fund which famously opened a basket of "internet shorts" several years prior, and which have continued to rip ever higher, detracting from Greenlight"s overall performance.

This, in turn, has prompted Einhorn to consider the unthinkable alternative: "Might the cycle never turn?" In other words, is the market now permanently broken.

Einhorn goes on to explain that his strategy "relies on the assumption that the equity value of a company equals the market’s best assessment of the current and future profits discounted at the company’s cost of capital. Our ability to outperform often comes from our skill in finding opportunities where the market has misestimated current or future profitability or miscalculated the cost of capital by over- or underestimating the risks."

It is here than an unexpectedly exasperated Einhorn emerges:

Given the performance of certain stocks, we wonder if the market has adopted an alternative paradigm for calculating equity value. What if equity value has nothing to do with current or future profits and instead is derived from a company’s ability to be disruptive, to provide social change, or to advance new beneficial technologies, even when doing so results in current and future economic loss? It’s clear that a number of companies provide products and services to customers that come with a subsidy from equity holders. And yet, on a mark-to-market basis, the equity holders are doing just fine.

Ah yes, the Fed-funded "deflation trade" which lowers prices for goods and services courtesy of ravenous investors who will throw money at any "growth" idea, without considerations for return or profit, because - well - more such investors will emerge tomorrow.  After all, in this day and age of ZIRP, what else will they do with their money.

Here Einhorn took aim at his favorite "bubble" shorts: Amazon, Tesla and Netflix. This is what he said:

When we consider the business performance of our three most well-known “bubble” shorts, we wonder if this alternative paradigm is in play. Last quarter, we noted Amazon.com’s (AMZN) earnings estimates had fallen over the prior few quarters. This quarter, AMZN revealed a much lower level of long-term structural profitability, causing consensus estimates for the next five years to drop by 40%, 22%, 18%, 14% and 8%, respectively. Ordinarily, stocks trading at nosebleed multiples fall sharply when such a dramatic reassessment happens. Instead, AMZN fell less than 1% during the quarter. Our view is that just because AMZN can disrupt somebody else’s profit stream, it doesn’t mean that AMZN earns that profit stream. For the moment, the market doesn’t agree. Perhaps, simply being disruptive is enough.

 

Tesla (TSLA) had an awful quarter both in its current results and future prospects. In response, its shares fell almost 6%. We believe it deserved much worse. So much went wrong for TSLA in the quarter that it is hard to only provide a brief summary. The main near-term problems are poor demand for its legacy vehicles and manufacturing challenges for the new Model 3. Notably, TSLA dramatically reduced its gross margin assumption for the September quarter and publicly blamed ramp-up costs for the new Model 3 sedan. More quietly, the company used the lower gross margin hurdle to offer incentives and to lower the cost of options on the Model S and Model X vehicles, and even offered significant markdowns on showroom models. Given the depth of the price cuts, we were surprised that demand for the Model S and Model X only improved modestly.

 

Meanwhile, it is becoming clear that scale manufacturing is actually a skill. While the CEO makes bold claims about TSLA’s superior prowess, continued production shortfalls, defects and product recalls disprove him. TSLA faces competition from established OEMs that have decades of scale manufacturing experience. Some of TSLA’s presumed market lead in areas like autonomous driving may more likely reflect TSLA’s willingness to put inadequately  tested and dangerous products on the road rather than a true technological advantage.

 

Finally, there is Netflix (NFLX), where the quarterly results beat expectations and the shares advanced 21%. Competition is heating up and media companies such as Disney will be removing their content from NFLX to compete directly (bulls used to believe that Disney would pull a Time Warner/AOL and pay-up for the highly promoted but profitless business). NFLX continues to accelerate its cash burn as it desperately tries to compensate for its inability to rely longer-term on licensed content. On the second quarter conference call, the CEO stated, “In some senses the negative free cash flow will be an indicator of enormous success.” To us, all it indicates is that NFLX is capable of dramatically changing the economics of stand-up comedy in favor of the comedians. Perhaps, there really is a new paradigm for valuing equities and the joke is on us. Time will tell.

Einhorn also highlights the biggest winners and losers in the quarter including CONSOL Energy (CNX), General Motors (GM) and Uniper (Germany: UN01) which were the largest contributors, while Caterpillar (CAT) short and Mylan (MYL) were detractors.

Some more details: Greenlight added long positions in Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Micron and Tempur Sealy; exited a short position on Best Buy and a long position on PVH. The fund"s largest disclosed long positions at quarter end were unchanged from the end of 2Q: AerCap, Bayer, Consol Energy, General Motors and gold. The parternships had an average exposure of 118% long and 73% short.

The full letter is below:

Here's How People Get Fooled Into Buying Bankrupt Companies...

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

In 1906, American entrepreneur William T. Grant opened his very first “W.T. Grant Co 25 cent store” in a small town outside of Boston.

The store became popular and fairly profitable. So Grant opened another. And another.

Three decades later, Grant’s retail empire was generating $100 million in sales (an enormous sum back then). And by the time of Grant’s death in 1972, there were over 1,000 stores bearing his name.

Investors loved W.T. Grant Company stock for its reliable profits and high dividends.

Many of our subscribers may remember W.T. Grant. The chain was among the largest in the US at its peak.

And then something completely unexpected happened…

In 1976, W.T. Grant Company declared bankruptcy.

At the time, it was the second biggest bankruptcy in US history. And, like the downfall of Lehman Brothers and other big Wall Street institutions at the onset of the 2008 financial crisis, it was a shock to the world.

How could a company as big and profitable as W.T. Grant Co. go bust?

In the autopsy that followed the bankruptcy, accountants found that while the company was generating substantial PROFIT, it was not generating any CASH FLOW.

These two terms sound the same, but they’re dramatically different.

Profit, or more specifically net income, includes all sorts of bizarre accounting rules that don’t actually make sense in the real world.

Due to these rules, companies are often required to adjust revenue and expenses for things like “depreciation”, or “foreign exchange gains and losses”.

These are all merely accounting terms that don’t directly and immediately affect cash balances. But they can dramatically impact “profitability.”

Here’s one example from my own experience: a few years ago, the large agriculture company that I founded here in Chile purchased a farm.

We bought it for far below the property’s market value.

It was a great deal for the business. BUT… accounting rules required that our company record a PROFIT based on the difference between what we paid for the property and what it was worth.

This idiotic rule made it seem like we achieved a profit simply for buying a property.

This makes no sense. In the real world, we would only earn a profit by SELLING the property for a higher amount than we paid. You can’t profit before you sell something.

It’s rules like this that make profit an unreliable metric.

CASH FLOW is much more accurate.

Specifically, OPERATING CASH FLOW tells us how much money a company makes from its business.

It strips out all the silly rules and focuses purely on how much cash a business generates from its operations.

Then there’s FREE CASH FLOW, which is the amount of money left over for investors AFTER a company makes all of the necessary investments it requires for future growth.

Cash flow is what counts. If a company has negative cash flow, it will eventually go under.

Profit can be misleading. And that’s what happened to W.T Grant Co. It was profitable but had negative cash flow.

Today there’s another famous business in similar circumstances– our old friend Netflix.

Quarter after quarter, Netflix reports a profit.

Just yesterday afternoon the company had its quarterly earnings call, posting a profit of $553 million. Not bad.

Yet when anyone dives just a little bit deeper into the numbers, Netflix’s cash flow is absolutely gruesome.

The company’s operating cash flow is negative. In other words, after stripping out all the unrealistic accounting nonsense, Netflix’s core business LOSES MONEY.

In fact Netflix’s operating cash flow has been negative FOR YEARS. And the amount of money its losing is increasing.

Netflix’s business has lost $1.3 billion so far through the first nine months of 2017. That’s 52% worse than the $916 million operating cash flow deficit they suffered in the first nine months of 2016, and nearly three times worse than the $504 million operating cash flow deficit during the first nine months of 2015.

Throughout this period, the number of Netflix subscribers has steadily grown, now well in excess of 100 million.

And every time Netflix reports a big surge in subscribers, the stock price soars.

This is truly bizarre. Just look at the cash flow numbers: as the number of Netflix subscribers has grown over the years, the company losses have grown even more.

It reminds me of that old saying from the 1990s dot-com bubble– “We lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume.”

But it gets worse.

The company’s negative operating cash flow doesn’t include the billions of dollars that it spends on content.

And on its quarterly earnings call yesterday, executives announced they will spend a whopping $8 billion on original content next year.

That’s $8 billion that they don’t have. And don’t forget the $1.4 billion operating cash flow deficit.

Where are they possibly going to find this money? Simple. Debt. Netflix will pile on more and more debt despite racking up enormous cash flow deficits.

Now, to be fair, it’s not unusual for a business to lose money for a period of time as part of a longer-term plan to generate strong cash flow.

But just look at this industry: it seems like EVERYONE is diving in to this original content game.

Apple. Facebook. Amazon. CBS. Disney. Google. Sony. Time Warner. Hulu. Each of these organizations has developed a streaming service with original content.

And some of them (especially Google and Facebook) have an endless war chest thanks to their cash-gushing core businesses.

Google’s parent company (Alphabet) reported free cash flow of $11.6 billion in the second quarter alone. So it could easily outspend Netflix and still have billions of dollars left over.

All of this competition is going to be great for consumers; these companies are collectively spending tens of billions of dollars to entertain us. And they’re going to lose money doing it.

But for investors this is sheer madness. Don’t be the sucker paying for other people’s entertainment.

And to continue learning how to safely grow your wealth, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

WH Official Sebastian Gorka Demolishes CNN On Live TV For 2nd Time This Week

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Sebastian Gorka is so spicy I think he can fold space...

The Deputy WH assistant has been making the rounds to discuss the "crisis" in the White House over Donald Trump Jr"s meeting with a Russian attorney, and let me tell you - this guy is the Tyrion Lannister of the Trump administration in terms of wit and delivery, making not one, but two CNN hosts his bitch this week over Fake News.

On Tuesday, Gorka appeared on CNN with Alisyn Camerota, where he tossed a few truth grenades over the network"s ratings, telling viewers that "more people watch cartoons than CNN."

(How could AT&T still want to pay $85 Billion for parent co. Time Warner with such a seriously damaged asset?)

WRECKED: 

Sebastian Gorka: More people watch cartoons than CNN. pic.twitter.com/m2sDDcBPrV

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) July 11, 2017

Then on Wednesday, Gorka appeared on Anderson Cooper 360 to discuss Trump Jr"s meeting which was likely designed to set up the Trump team and is blowing up in their faces...

As Real Clear Politics reports:

Gorka called the idea that there is a "bunker mentality" or "crisis" about this week"s Donald Jr. news in the White House "laughable," stating: "We are pushing the Make America Great Again agenda. The president is a steam locomotive that will not be stopped. It’s just fake news. I’m sad to see CNN fall to this. I know you want salacious, sensational coverage for your ratings, so your corporate sponsors and owners will have more money. But that’s not media, that’s not reportage, it’s just fake news.

Gorka went on to tell Cooper that "The story only exists - it only has legs - because the Fake News Industrial Complex is obsessed. Nine months of accusations with zero evidence of anything actually illegal!"

Cooper had a few snarky comebacks which Gorka batted away before proceeding to deliver yet another "he broke me" moment for the beleaguered Very Fake News network.

"It is not about you... It is about actually having journalism back on TV. Where are the Walter Cronkites? It is all about ratings and money, it is really quite sad."

Enjoy: 

 

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel