Showing posts with label Valuation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Valuation. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Unicorn-holed: Softbank Coalition To Buy Uber Shares At A 30% Discount

And the hits keep coming for the unicornest unicorn in all of unicorn-land...


Back in the summer, we suggested - for numerous reasons - that Uber"s next round of financing may come at a significant discount to its current $69 billion valuation.



Overnight, headlines hit that SoftBank was said to have learned of last year"s hidden-to-the-public security breach about a month ago, and may have changed SoftBank’s evaluation of Uber’s shares, WSJ reports, citing people familiar with the matter. As a reminder, in addition to failing to notify users and the public about the information that was exposed, the company paid the hackers $100,000 to delete the data and subsequently had them sign nondisclosure agreements.


Furthermore, ReCode reports today that the city of Chicago is suing Uber for failing to disclose the 2016 breach of 57 million users’ data.


SoftBank was expected to proceed with an offer to buy billions of dollars worth of shares from Uber stakeholders as soon as this week, with a SoftBank-led investors group planning to start to buy at least 14% of Uber from existing shareholders through tender offer "at a steep discount."



Well tonight we find out just how steep that discount is...


Bloomberg reports that SoftBank and a coalition of investors will offer to buy shares in Uber at a price that would value the ride-hailing company at 30 percent less than its most recent $69 billion valuation, according to two people familiar with the matter.


 


The deal isn’t done, however. Shareholders will need to sell at the $48 billion price.


 


While it’s 30 percent less than the current valuation, the offer would represent a significant windfall for many early investors.


 


If shareholders don’t agree to sell in sufficient numbers, SoftBank could raise the price or walk away.



We suspect shareholders will be more than willing to dump their shares to monetize some of their rapidly declining investment or face being truly unicorn-holed.









Thursday, November 9, 2017

Investors Now Value A $20 Billion Company Based On Its "Energy & Spirituality"

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,


About twelve years ago, at the height of the real estate boom in the United States, banks began issuing what became known as NINJA loans.


You’ve probably heard the term before– NINJA stood for No Income, Job, or Assets.


These were the famed ‘no money down’ loans at low, teaser interest rates given to borrowers with pitiful credit and little hope of being able to make the payments.


One of the best examples of this absurdity was the case of Johnny Moon, a bankrupt, homeless man in Florida with no job history who was able to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy real estate.


Unsurprisingly, the market eventually crashed, dragging down the entire financial system with it.


Looking back it’s so obvious. I mean… duh… who would possibly think it was a good idea to give no money down loans to homeless, jobless, assetless borrowers?


Or the infamous ‘stated income’ loans, where the lender doesn’t bother to verify anything the borrower says (so the borrower can just make up their income and asset levels).


But back then, even some of the most conservative banks were doing it.


And hard core, seasoned financial professionals packaged all these toxic loans together into enormous, AAA-rated financial securities that were incredibly popular among institutional investors.


It’s not like these were stupid people. Bankers, brokers, investors, real estate professionals… many of them were incredibly astute.


But everyone was making so much money that they didn’t want to see the obvious truth. And the entire financial system paid the price for it.


Candidly, there are a number of similar signs today.


Snapchat is a great example.


The sexting social media app that’s so popular with pedophiles young people released rather disappointing quarterly results yesterday.


User growth is falling. Revenue growth is falling. And the company is hemorrhaging cash.


Snapchat has negative free cash flow. It has negative operating cash flow.


It has lost a total of $4.3 billion of its shareholders’ money since the company was founded in 2011– and more than $3 billion (nearly 70%) of that total loss is from this year alone.


In other words, the rate at which Snapchat is losing money… is INCREASING. Quickly.


Meanwhile the company continues to shower its employees with generous stock options despite its prodigious losses, ultimately forcing investors to suffer the consequences.


Snapchat’s shares took a big tumble yesterday after releasing its underwhelming quarterly report, and the share price is down more than 50% since it’s IPO.



Gee, what a surprise– a massively loss-making company that treats its investors like doormats has turned out to be a bad investment! How could anyone have possibly anticipated this?!?!


And Snapchat isn’t alone.


Another high-flying company that fits this mold is WeWork. If you’re not familiar, WeWork basically subleases short-term office space to other businesses at terms as short as one month.


So if you’re a new startup needing some short-term, non-committal office space…


… or flexible access to a conference room to meet clients…


… or even just a professional address to receive mail.


… that’s essentially what WeWork provides.


It’s important to note that WeWork doesn’t actually own any real estate.


It signs long-term leases, and then sub-leases the space through short-term contracts, which creates a LOT of risk for the company (and its investors).


You might be thinking– that sounds familiar, aren’t there a number of companies already doing that? It seems a lot like Regus’s business model (another company that provides flexible-lease office space).


Yes. It’s like… exactly… what Regus’s business model is.


The big difference is that WeWork is one of the most expensive private companies in the world, with a valuation of $20 billion.


By comparison, the parent company of Regus (IWG) is worth $2 billion (90% LESS than WeWork) despite having 3x as much revenue and 5x as much office space.


It also goes without saying that WeWork has negative cashflow… while Regus is profitable. But that’s apparently an irrelevant detail given that WeWork is worth TEN TIMES as much as Regus.


How can WeWork possibly justify such an enormous valuation?


The CEO/co-founder’s rationale is simple: “Our valuation and size today are much more based on our energy and spirituality than it is on a multiple of revenue.”


Yes I’m serious: that is a direct quote.



We are living in a world where serious financial professionals are investing in loser companies based on “energy and spirituality,” not profit, plan, or cashflow.


(As an aside, WeWork’s CEO is so energetic and spiritual that he’s personally sold $100 million worth of his own shares to buy a number of luxury homes.)


It’s not exactly the same as giving FIVE no-money down loans to a homeless guy. But it’s pretty close.


And this is precisely the sort of nonsense you always see at the top of a market.


Granted, it could keep going like this for YEARS. And it could become even more ridiculous.


No one knows precisely what will happen next, or when. And I acknowledge that I’m always early.


But I do believe that for anyone willing to do a little bit of homework and look beyond what’s sexy and sensational, there are plenty of better options out there.


As an example, we have a number of subscribers earning 5%+ on loan investments they’ve made which are fully backed at a 2:1 margin by gold and silver.


Others are making 12% to 13.5% on other asset-backed loans. We discuss some of these investments here.


They’re not sexy or sensational. There’s no hyped-up CEO promising to change the world, or major headlines on CNBC.


They’re just steady, safe investments… pretty boring by comparison.


But I’ll take safe and boring over a risky loser any day of the week.


Do you have a Plan B?









Tuesday, October 24, 2017

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:











Sunday, October 15, 2017

China Is Threatening America's Unicorn Dominance

The United States is the undisputed capital of the unicorn - private companies worth more than $1 billion. This title though, is becoming more and more under threat, primarily from China.


Infographic: China is Threatening America


You will find more statistics at Statista


As Statista"s Martin Armstrong notes, according to CB Insights, there are currently 215 unicorns in the world, of which 108 are from the U.S.


When it comes to the "birth" of new unicorns however, America"s strength is clearly being diluted.


In 2013, 75 percent of new unicorns were born in the United States, fast forward to 2017 though, and this share has fallen to just 41 percent.


The number of new unicorns from around the world has remained reasonably stable over this time, but it is the rapid increase in activity in China - from 0 percent in 2013 to 36 percent this year - that is putting the most pressure on U.S. dominance.

Monday, August 21, 2017

Tesla Is The World's 4th Largest Automaker (Despite Only Selling 76,000 Cars In 2016)

It’s been another breakout year for Tesla. Over the course of 2017, the company’s market capitalization has soared beyond those of major manufacturers like Ford, GM, BMW, Honda, and Nissan. This thrust can be partly attributed to the company’s Model S, which reigns supreme as the top-selling plug-in electric car worldwide in 2015 and 2016.


But, as Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins notes, more importantly for Tesla, this massive momentum is based on the company’s much-anticipated future performance. Investors and analysts eagerly anticipate progress as the company ramps up production of the more affordable Model 3, and many also strongly believe that Elon Musk brings an “X Factor” that could translate into future returns.


In today’s charts, we look at Tesla’s ascent in valuation to become the #4 ranked automaker globally, and also the #1 maker in America. We also show why the value assigned to Tesla’s astonishing valuation may be premature, at least based on conventional metrics.





TESLA’S RAPID ASCENT


In the opening months of 2013, Tesla was just starting to plan deliveries for its Model S. At the time, the company was worth a mere $3.9 billion – just 7% of the value of Ford.


Since then, Tesla’s value has skyrocketed to make it the most valued auto company in North America:



Despite only producing 76,230 vehicles in 2016, Tesla is now the biggest of the “Big 3” – and this puts a lot of pressure on the company to live up to the vast expectations held by investors and media.


THE SPECULATOR’S GAMBIT


With so much hype and value assigned to expectations of future performance, Tesla and its enthusiastic investors are in a potentially tough spot.


Even though it is the most valued car company in the United States, Tesla is much less impressive by more conventional metrics:



The company has just a fraction of the employees, vehicle deliveries, and revenue of its competitors. Tesla also treads a similar path to Amazon, in that it will likely take a while for the company to ever post a profit.


Here’s another look, this time showing Tesla’s metrics as a percentage of GM’s:



Tesla is producing less than 1% as many cars as GM, but is worth more in market value.


That’s not to say that Tesla will not ultimately live up to expectations – but it does put into perspective the risk of banking on these future returns.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Elevated 2018 Estimates Widen Gap Between GAAP & Non-GAAP Earnings

Via Hedgopia.com,


As of last Thursday, a little over four-fifths of S&P 500 companies reported 2Q17 results.  Of the 422 companies, 70.1 percent beat on operating earnings, 20.6 percent missed and 9.2 percent met, as per S&P Dow Jones Indices.


In the latest week (through Thursday), 2Q17 estimates went up by $0.33 week-over-week to $31.03.  When the quarter came to an end, estimates were $30.97.  Going back many quarters, actual earnings have come in lower than expected at the time of the quarter-end.  From this perspective, the hitherto 2Q17 trend is an improvement, although one-fifth are yet to report.


The increase in 2Q17 estimates also helped push up 2017 estimates by $0.13, to $127.64, even as 2018 went down by $0.40 to $144.77.  More important perhaps is the revision trend, which is down.


In January last year, 2017 was expected to come in at $141.11.  In January this year, 2018 estimates were $147.21 (Chart 1).


The downward trend in 2017/2018 estimates is nothing new, considering how 2015 and 2016 fared.  In both those years, actual operating earnings were substantially less than the sell-side’s original estimates.


As things stand, 2018 expectations look way elevated.




There is a tight correlation between GDP and corporate profits.


U.S. corporate profits adjusted for inventory valuation and capital consumption peaked at $2.23 trillion in 4Q14, with 1Q17 at $2.11 trillion.  Since that peak, profits fell year-over-year in five quarters and rose in four, including gains of 3.3 percent in 1Q17.


Growth in real GDP peaked around the same time – in 3Q14, when the economy expanded at a 5.2 percent annual rate.  In 2Q17, it grew 2.6 percent.  This was higher than the post-Great Recession average of 2.2 percent, but much lower than the long-term average of 3.2 percent going back to 2Q47.



The economy is in its ninth year of recovery.  Expecting it to accelerate at this time is probably a risky bet.  That said, 2018 earnings estimates probably do exactly that.


Valuation multiples are priced off of these estimates.  Stocks are at/near all-time highs, with elevated multiples.  Using trailing 12-month numbers as of 1Q17, the S&P 500 traded at 21.3 times operating and 23.6 times reported earnings.


Hence another equally important question, how clean are these estimates?


Chart 3 plots both operating (non-GAAP) and reported earnings (GAAP) of S&P 500 companies going back to 4Q10.  (Except for the lighter-shade bars within the blue box, these are actual numbers.)



One distinct trend in particular since 4Q14 is that the gap between the two is widening.


Companies are required to report GAAP earnings, not non-GAAP.  Non-GAAP numbers are reported by the reporting company, but they do reconcile the two.


There are times companies have perfectly good reason to request/ask analysts/investors to ignore certain items.  Irregular or non-cash expenses or one-time charges, for example.


Restructuring expenses, stock-based compensation, goodwill amortization are some of the non-GAAP exclusions.  In general, this does tend to smooth out earnings volatility.


The problem arises when this becomes a permanent fixture.  Stock-based compensation among many tech outfits, for example.


Chart 4 subtracts operating earnings of S&P 500 companies from reported earnings going back to 1988.



The difference was minuscule at the beginning.  It began to grow circa 2000, and has stayed.  In both 2002 and 2008, GAAP took a massive hit, as assets got impaired, so both these years are more of an outlier.  But even excluding these, the trend is not getting better.  The discrepancy between GAAP and non-GAAP is not narrowing.


This raises questions about the quality of non-GAAP earnings, which is what the investing community in general focuses on.  This gap is easy to ignore in good times, but maybe not so when bad times hit.

The United States Of Unicorns

The United States is home to 105 unicorn companies valued at $1B+.


As of 7/25/2017, CBInsights.com reports that six private US companies are worth over $10B. The two most valuable unicorns in the US are Uber ($68B) and Airbnb ($29.3B). Palantir Technologies and WeWork, both valued at $20B, are tied for third.


Of the top four highest valued, only WeWork (which is based in NYC) is headquartered outside California.


California has the highest unicorn “population” of any US state by far, with 62 billion-dollar startups inside its borders. New York ranks second with 15, followed by Massachusetts and Illinois with five each. Eight other states and the District of Columbia are also home to at least one company worth $1B+.


click image for huge legible version




Key insights about the companies in this map:


  • Collectively, US unicorns are worth approximately $360B.

  • Combined, these companies have raised just over $73B.

  • After California, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois, the next-highest unicorn populations are found in Utah (with four) and Florida (with three).

  • The top five most well-funded US unicorns are: Uber ($15.1B raised), Airbnb ($4.4B), WeWork ($2.76), Infor ($2.63B), and Lyft ($2.46B).

  • The oldest unicorn in the US is the greentech company Bloom Energy, which reached a valuation above $1B in 2009.

  • The newest unicorn in the US is 3D printing startup Desktop Metal, which became a unicorn in July 2017 after raising a $115M Series D.

  • The three most active investors in US-based unicorns, by total number of deals to these companies, are the VC firms Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, and Tiger Global Management.   – CBINSIGHTS

Friday, April 28, 2017

Bubble Alert: Stocks Are Trading Based on Accounting Gimmicks and Fraud, Not Growth

Time to bust yet another hole in the “stocks are cheap” argument.


As we’ve already noted earlier this week, based on the only valuation metric that can’t be massaged, stocks are more expensive than they were in 2007 and on their way to tying the all-time high established in 1999.



Source: The King Report


Of course, few people use P/S to value stocks. Most people use Price to Earnings or Earnings Per Share (EPS), since this is meant to represent how expensive stocks are relative to the money a stockowner gains by “owning them.”


On that note, according to the “official data” the S&P 500 is sporting a P/E ratio of 25. This is supposedly “cheap” since it’s below the P/E ratios established in the past.



Unfortunately, this too has been shown to be a load of nonsense. As Lance Roberts has revealed, only 13% of today’s earnings per share results stem from actual “growth” via revenues. The rest are based on accounting gimmicks like buybacks, write offs and the like.



Put another way, 87% of earnings growth since the GREAT CRISIS has been the result of accounting gimmicks.


This is a 1 in 100 year type event. The fact that stocks have rallied to new all-time-highs based on this is like someone winning a Olympic Gold medal while hopping themselves up on every steroid imaginable.


The fall-out will be just as intense.


The below chart isn"t a pretty one, but it"s worth keeping in mind as stocks move ever higher into nosebleed territory based on accounting trickery.



This bubble, like all bubbles, will burst. And when it does, the market will crash, just as it did in 2000 and 2008.


We offer a FREE investment report outlining when the bubble will burst as well as what investments will pay out massive returns to investors when this happens. It"s called The Biggest Bubble of All Time (and three investment strategies to profit from it).


We are offering just 1,000 copies to the general public. As I write this a mere 99 are left.


To pick up your FREE copy...


CLICK HERE NOW!


Best Regards


Graham Summers


Chief Market Strategist


Phoenix Capital Research

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

A $500 Billion "Hitch" Emerges In The Saudi Aramco IPO

As Saudi Arabia"s deputy crown prince pushes his nation"s Vision 2030 economic overhaul and crows of the $2 trillion Saudi Aramco valuation (ahead of its potential IPO), WSJ reports that officials at the state-owned oil company are using internal value estimates to $1.3 to $1.5 trillion, calling bin Salman"s estimate "unrealistic and mind blowing."



Since deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman announced the stock-offering plan and his $2 trillion estimate early last year, insiders and outsiders have questioned how he arrived at that number.



Source


About two dozen employees have been working since last year to try and figure how to take Aramco public, and have been working with Western consultants to explore ways to restructure Aramco to maximize its value, say people familiar with the process. The team has determined several variables - or what some call “levers” - likely to affect the price investors will pay for shares of the world’s largest oil producer, according to internal documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and people familiar with the process.


But, as The Wall Street Journal reports, no matter how they pull those levers, which include the price of oil and Saudi tax policy, Aramco’s projected value tops out at about $1.5 trillion, these people say.


One such lever was a major tax reduction (but even then it didn"t add up to bin Salman"s $2 trillion guess...





The Saudi government last month said it is reducing Aramco’s tax rate to 50% from 85%, bringing its tax rate closer to the level of the world’s biggest oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.



That move would result in higher dividends for potential shareholders, and it brought Aramco’s internal value estimates to $1.3 trillion to $1.5 trillion from about half a trillion dollars, say people involved in the process.



By selling up to 5% of shares in an initial public offering targeted for next year, the government plans to raise billions of dollars that it can use to invest in other industries as part of a plan to reduce its heavy dependence on oil. The valuation discrepancy raises new challenges for a deal that is already fraught with complexity and facing opposition within the ranks of the kingdom’s government bureaucracy, according to people familiar with the matter.





One Aramco official called the figure “unrealistic and mind blowing.”



Questions about Aramco’s valuation surfaced earlier this year when a report for potential investors prepared by oil-industry consultant Wood Mackenzie Ltd. put Aramco’s value at around $400 billion, according to a client who attended a private Wood Mackenzie briefing. Saudi government officials say Aramco’s high reserves and low costs should make the company attractive to investors.





“Our profitability is higher than others and the interest we have received so far is huge,” said one official who defended the $2 trillion number.



Some officials inside the company and in government have privately suggested reevaluating the listing, say people familiar with the matter, and perhaps reducing its size or delaying it. So far,  Prince Mohammed and his staff seem unlikely to do so, say people familiar with the matter.





“This IPO will happen regardless of the valuation they may receive,” according to the government official who called the $2-trillion-dollar number “mind-blowing.”


Friday, March 3, 2017

Indian Economy Collapses As 'Demonetization' Crushes Small Business

The Sales Managers Index (SMI) is one of the earliest monthly indicators of Indian economic activity. February"s data shows the catastrophic after-effects of the December demonetization policy which was intended to crack down on corruption and "black money".


The February Headline SMI has fallen to an index level of 60.2 in unadjusted terms, the lowest level in over 3 years.



Source: WorldEconomics.com


Managers are reporting a big drop in monthly sales for both the consumer and industrial sectors, with small to medium size businesses that predominantly deal with cash transactions, being hardest hit.



Source: WorldEconomics.com


Furthermore, the cash policy has had the effect of forcing up the overall Prices Charged Index (53.6) to levels not seen since spring 2013, when the Rupee was valued at ?53.92 against the USD, it is now trading at ?67.29. Some panel members are expecting the currency to continue to fall.



Source: WorldEconomics.com


Higher inflation in the consumer goods and services sectors, represented by the Prices Charged Index for Services (54.7), is pushing the valuation of the Rupee to even greater levels of undervaluation on the World Price Index (WPI) scale. The WPI under valuation level for the Indian Rupee is currently -41% using February data. Businesses are taking advantage of the situation created by such an undervalued currency, with the majority of panel members feeling that the current FX level is becoming advantageous for their businesses.


Overall, February SMI data suggests an erratic situation for Indian businesses as they meet market challenges with considerably lower levels of confidence, slower monthly sales and higher prices caused by the currency situation.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Valuations Matter – Even For Millennial Investors

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,


A friend reached out to me today and asked me a simple question:





“If the average person gets a $3000 tax refund every year and then invests the refund into the S&P 500, what would their end result look like?” 



No problem. All we need to do is make a few quick assumptions.


  1. Historically, going back to 1900, using Robert Shiller’s historical data, the market has averaged, more or less, 10% annually on a total return basis. Of that 10%, roughly 6% came from capital appreciation and 4% from dividends. (This is important and we will return to this later.)

  2. Given the lack of ability, and or desire, to save in younger years most people begin to get serious about saving money around 35 years of age on average.

  3. We will assume a retirement age of 65 which puts our saving and investing time frame at 30-years.

As I stated, this is a relatively easy calculation which you can find regularly espoused throughout the majority of the financial media, blogosphere, and Wall Street as the promise of “passive indexing” persists.



Not bad. The $3000 per year savings plan grows to a nice lump sum of $500,000.


This clearly supports the long-held belief that if you have 30-years to retirement, just dollar-cost average into some index funds and you will be fine. 


You can stop reading now.



But What If The Entire Premise Is Flawed? 


If, as a millennial investor, you really want to save and invest for retirement you need to understand how markets really work.


Markets are highly volatile over the long-term investment period. During any time horizon the biggest detractors from the achievement of financial goals come from five factors:


  • Lack of capital to invest.

  • Psychological and behavioral factors. (i.e. buy high/sell low)

  • Variable rates of return.

  • Time horizons, and;

  • Beginning valuation levels 

I have addressed the first two at length in Dalbar 2016, Why You Still Suck At Investing but the important points are these:


Despite your best intentions to “buy and hold” over the long-term, the reality is that you will unlikely achieve those promised returns.



While the inability to participate in the financial markets is certainly a major issue, the biggest reason for underperformance by investors who do participate in the financial markets over time is psychology.



Behavioral biases that lead to poor investment decision-making is the single largest contributor to underperformance over time. Dalbar defined nine of the irrational investment behavior biases specifically:


  • Loss Aversion – The fear of loss leads to a withdrawal of capital at the worst possible time.  Also known as “panic selling.”

  • Narrow Framing – Making decisions about on part of the portfolio without considering the effects on the total.

  • Anchoring – The process of remaining focused on what happened previously and not adapting to a changing market.

  • Mental Accounting – Separating performance of investments mentally to justify success and failure.

  • Lack of Diversification – Believing a portfolio is diversified when in fact it is a highly correlated pool of assets.

  • Herding– Following what everyone else is doing. Leads to “buy high/sell low.”

  • Regret – Not performing a necessary action due to the regret of a previous failure.

  • Media Response – The media has a bias to optimism to sell products from advertisers and attract view/readership.

  • Optimism – Overly optimistic assumptions tend to lead to rather dramatic reversions when met with reality.

The biggest of these problems for individuals is the “herding effect” and “loss aversion.”


These two behaviors tend to function together compounding the issues of investor mistakes over time. As markets are rising, individuals are lead to believe that the current price trend will continue to last for an indefinite period. The longer the rising trend last, the more ingrained the belief becomes until the last of “holdouts” finally “buys in” as the financial markets evolve into a “euphoric state.”


As the markets decline, there is a slow realization that “this decline” is something more than a “buy the dip” opportunity.  As losses mount, the anxiety of loss begins to mount until individuals seek to “avert further loss” by selling.


This is the basis of the “Buy High / Sell Low” syndrome that plagues investors over the long-term.


However, without understanding what drives market returns over the long term, you can’t understand the impact the market has on psychology and investor behavior.


Over any 30-year period the beginning valuation levels, the price your pay for your investments has a spectacular impact on future returns. I have highlighted return levels at 7-12x earnings and 18-22x earnings. We will use the average of 10x and 20x earnings for our savings analysis.



As you will notice, 30-year forward returns are significantly higher on average when investing at 10x earnings as opposed to 20x earnings or where we are currently near 25x.


For the purpose of this exercise, I went back through history and pulled the 4-periods where valuations were either above 20x earnings or below 10x earnings. I then ran a $1000 investment going forward for 30-years on a total-return, inflation adjusted, basis.



At 10x earnings, the worst performing period started in 1918 and only saw $1000 grow to a bit more than $6000. The best performing period was not the screaming bull market that started in 1980 because the last 10-years of that particular cycle caught the “dot.com” crash. It was the post-WWII bull market than ran from 1942 through 1972 that was the winner. Of course, the crash of 1974, just two years later, extracted a good bit of those returns.


Conversely, at 20x earnings, the best performing period started in 1900 which caught the rise of the market to its peak in 1929. Unfortunately, the next 4-years wiped out roughly 85% of those gains. However, outside of that one period, all of the other periods fared worse than investing at lower valuations. (Note: 1993 is still currently running as its 30-year period will end in 2023.)



The point to be made here is simple and was precisely summed up by Warren Buffett:





“Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” 



This is shown in the chart below. I have averaged each of the 4-periods above into a single total return, inflation adjusted, index, Clearly, investing at 10x earnings yields substantially better results.



So, with this understanding let me return once again to the young, Millennial saver, who is going to endeavor at saving their annual tax refund of $3000. The chart below shows $3000 invested annually into the S&P 500 inflation-adjusted, total return index at 10% compounded annually and both 10x and 20x valuation starting levels. I have also shown $3000 saved annually in a mattress.



The red line is 10% compounded annually. You won’t get that but it is there so you can compare it to the real returns received over the 30-year investment horizon starting at 10x and 20x valuation levels. The short fall between the promised 10% annual rates of return and actual returns are shown by in two shaded areas. In other words, if our young saver was banking on some advisors promise of 10% annual returns for retirement, he isn’t going to make it.


I want you to take note of the point made that when investing your money when markets are above 20x earnings, it was 22-years before it grew more than money stuffed in a mattress. Why 22 years? 


Take a look at the chart below.



Historically, it has generally taken roughly 22-years to resolve a period of over-valuation. Given the last major over-valuation period started in 1999, history suggests another major market downturn will mean revert valuations by 2021.


The point here is obvious, but difficult to grasp from a mainstream media that is continually enticing young Millennial investors to mistakenly invest their savings into an overvalued market. Saving your money, and waiting for a valuation based opportunity to invest those savings in the market, is the best, safest way, to invest for your financial future. 


Of course, Wall Street won’t like this much because they can’t charge you a fee if you are sitting on a mountain of cash awaiting the opportunity to “buy” their next misfortune.


But isn’t that what Baron Rothschild meant when quipped:





“The time to buy is when there’s blood in the streets.”



7-Steps To Long-Term Investment Success


With the market currently trading at the third-highest valuation level in history, only surpassed currently by the peaks in 1929 and 1999, you can only surmise what the outcome for our young saver will likely be.


The analysis reveals the important points young investors should consider given current valuation levels and the reality of investing over the long-term:


  • Expectations for future returns should be downwardly adjusted.

  • The potential for front-loaded returns going forward is unlikely.

  • Control investment behaviors and emotions that detract from portfolio returns is critical.

  • Future inflation expectations must be carefully considered.

  • Understand risk and control drawdowns in portfolios during market declines.

  • Save money regularly, invest when reward outweighs the risk. 

  • Expectations for compounded annual rates of returns should be dismissed 

Robo-advisors, passive indexing, etc. do not address these issues and will impair the ability of young investors to achieve their long-term goals.


Investing is not a competition. There are no awards for beating the market, but there are severe and lasting consequences for chasing markets where others fear to tread.


You are fine as long as there is a “greater fool” to eventually sell to. Just make sure that “fool” is not you.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Turn on any mainstream business channel (or President Trump"s tweet stream) and you will be told how "awesome" everything is going to be... look at stocks, look at sentiment surveys, look at consumer confidence, look at small business optimism.


There is two small problems with all of this...


1) The "hard" data is not confirming the "soft" data at all...



Philly Fed beating by 10 standard deviations, NFIB small business optimism at record highs, but Industrial Production is dropping, real wages are shrinking, and the housing market is imploding.


And 2) Earnings Expectations are declining...




Do the analysts not pay attention to how awesome everything will be? Are the CEOs not adjusting expectations higher because of how great America is going to be again?


It appears not.


As Factset notes, the S&P 500 forward P/E is at its highest since 2004...






During the past week (on February 15), the value of the S&P 500 closed at yet another all-time high at 2349.25. As of today, the forward 12-month P/E ratio for the S&P 500 stands at 17.6, based on yesterday’s closing price (2347.22) and forward 12-month EPS estimate ($133.49). Given the high values driving the “P” in the P/E ratio, how does this 17.6 P/E ratio compare to historical averages? What is driving the increase in the P/E ratio?



The current forward 12-month P/E ratio of 17.6 is now above the four most recent historical averages: 5-year (15.2), 10-year (14.4), 15-year (15.2), and 20-year (17.2).



In fact, this week marked the first time the forward 12-month P/E has been equal to (or above) 17.6 since June 23, 2004. On that date, the closing price of the S&P 500 was 1144.06 and the forward 12-month EPS estimate was $65.14.



Back on December 31, the forward 12-month P/E ratio was 16.9. Since this date, the price of the S&P 500 has increased by 4.8% (to 2349.45 from 2238.83), while the forward 12-month EPS estimate has increased by only 0.5% (to $133.49 from $132.84).



Thus, the increase in the “P” has been the main driver of the increase in the P/E ratio to 17.6 today from 16.9 at the start of the first quarter.



It is interesting to note that analysts are projecting record-level EPS for the S&P 500 for Q2 2017 through Q4 2017. If not, the forward 12-month P/E ratio would be even higher than 17.6.



Even Factset sounds skeptical.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Uber Has Too Much Debt For IPO (Video)

By EconMatters




We discuss Uber`s massive debt which we estimate around 4 to 4.5 Billion in aggregate, with a total capital raise of 11 Billion. The total debt number is astounding to say the least, but it is the rate of change of the debt number that is mindboggling. I don`t believe Uber has the Financials to go public, and investors risk losing everything at this rate of cash burn over the next three years. Uber may be the biggest high profile startup to file for bankruptcy before they make it to the IPO exit for the payoff for investors.


Uber has a spending problem, reminds me of Napster, quite a disruptor but not a profitable business model, flawed wasted energy, that becomes totally irrelevant and obsolete in five years anyway. Uber is essentially a glorified Ponzi scheme if you really get right down to the crux of the finances of this company. There are going to be sizable losses for all the investors valuing this company at a 62.5 Billion Valuation. That number will mean diddly squat in bankruptcy court!  



© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle