Category: Investing

Posted on

Is the ASX over-priced?

On the weekend I discussed how earnings for the S&P 500 have grown by roughly 6.0% over the last three decades but the growth rate should rise as stock buybacks have averaged just over 3.0% a year since 2011. In an ideal world the growth rate would lift to close to 9.0% p.a. if buybacks continue at the present rate. Add a 2.0% dividend yield and we have an expected annual return close to 11.0%.

Forward Price Earnings Ratio for S&P 500

I conducted a similar exercise for the ASX using data supplied by marketindex.com.au.

The first noticeable difference is that earnings for the ASX All Ordinaries Index grew at a slower pace. Earnings since 1980 grew at an average compound annual growth rate of 4.4%, while dividends grew at a much higher rate of 6.3%.

Forward Price Earnings Ratio for S&P 500

How is that possible?

Well the dividend payout ratio increased from the low forties to the high seventies. An average of just over 60%.

With a current payout ratio of 77% (Feb 2017), there is little room to increase the payout ratio any further. I expect dividend growth to match earnings growth (4.4% p.a.) for the foreseeable future.

Buybacks are not a major feature on the ASX, where investors favor dividends because of the franking credits. The dividend yield is higher, at just over 4.0%, for the same reason.

So the expected average return on the All Ordinaries Index should be no higher than 8.4% p.a. (the sum of dividend yield and expected growth) compared to an expected return of close to 11.0% for the S&P 500. That is, if buybacks are effective in lifting the earnings growth rate.

Obviously one has to factor in expected changes in the (AUDUSD) exchange rate, but that is a substantial difference for offshore investors. Local investors are also taking into account franking credits which benefit could amount to an additional 1.4% p.a.. But that still leaves a grossed-up return just shy of 10 percent (9.8% p.a.).

I would have expected a larger risk premium for a smaller exchange with strong commodity exposure.

Posted on

S&P 500 Price-Earnings Ratio rises

With 84.4% of S&P 500 index constituents having reported first-quarter earnings, 302 (73.84%) beat their earnings estimates while 77 (18.83%) missed. Forward estimates for 2017 contracted by an average of 4.6% over the last 12 months but not sufficient to raise the forward Price-Earnings Ratio above 20. That is the threshold level above which we consider the market to be over-priced.

Forward Price Earnings Ratio for S&P 500

Comparing the forward estimates for 2017 to actual earnings for 1989, we see that the market is expected to deliver a compound average growth rate of 6.0% over almost three decades.

With a dividend yield of 2.16%, that delivers a total return to investors of just over 8 percent.

Price-Earnings ratios fluctuate over time, so any improvement in the ratio should be considered temporary.

Buybacks have averaged just over 3 percent since 2011. The motivation for buybacks is that they should accelerate earnings growth but there is little evidence as yet to support this. As Reported Earnings grew at an average rate of 3.2% between December 2011 and 2016, below the long-term average.

A spike in earnings is projected for 2017 and 2018. Hopefully this continues. Else there will be a strong case for restoring dividends and reducing stock buybacks.

Posted on

2 Great Bollinger Band Trading Strategies

I recently updated Incredible Charts’ Bollinger Bands page to highlight two great trading strategies:

First, if you are not familiar with Bollinger Bands here is a quick summary of basic Bollinger Band trading signals.

Bollinger Band Squeezes

The traditional way of trading the Bollinger Band squeeze is on breakout above (or below) the bands after a squeeze. Now Microsoft had been trending upward since 2012 and another advance was likely. It is important to guard against fake signals in the opposite direction, like the one highlighted in mid-September 2016.

Microsoft Bollinger Band Squeeze with Twiggs Money Flow

  • Green arrow = Long entry
  • Red arrow = Exit
  • The red candle on Friday, September 9th closed below the lower band after a narrow Bollinger squeeze, signaling a downward break, before a large engulfing candle on Monday warned of reversal to an up-trend. The primary trend would alert traders to treat shorter-term bear signals with caution but it is also advisable to use Twiggs Money Flow to confirm buying or selling pressure. Here 21-day Twiggs Money Flow is oscillating above zero, indicating buying pressure despite the downward breakout. So the trade would be ignored.
  • Subsequent rising troughs on Twiggs Money Flow would give me sufficient confidence to enter the trade [green arrow] before the next breakout, with a stop below the recent low at $56. More cautious traders would wait for breakout above the upper Bollinger Band but this often gives a wider risk margin because the stop should still be set below $56. The subsequent pull-back to test support in November 2016 underlines the need not to set stops at the breakout level.
  • Exit [red arrow] on bearish divergence on Twiggs Money Flow, when the second dip crosses below zero, or if price closes below the lower Bollinger Band.

Bollinger Band Trends

The second strategy is a trend-following strategy I picked up from Nick Radge’s book Unholy Grails, where he uses 100-day Bollinger Bands to capture trend momentum. The rules are simple:

  • Enter when price closes above the upper Bollinger Band
  • Exit when price closes below the lower Bollinger Band

Nick proposes setting the upper band at 3 standard deviations and the lower band at 1 standard deviation but I am wary of this (too much like curve-fitting) and would stick to bands at 2 standard deviations.

Here I have plotted Microsoft with 100-day Bollinger Bands at 2 standard deviations and 13-week Twiggs Money Flow to highlight long-term buying and selling pressure.

Microsoft Bollinger Band Trends

For a detailed discussion of trading signals for this chart, go to Bollinger Band Trends.

Posted on

CEO pay is rigged | Barry Ritholz

From Barry Ritholz:

CEO pay is rigged.

If that sounds more like a late-night presidential tweet than a fact, let’s consider the evidence.

The compensation packages of the chief executive officers of America have been rising faster than just about any rational metric upon which they are supposedly based. “CEO pay grew an astounding 943% over the past 37 years,” according to a recent Economic Policy Institute analysis. EPI further observes this was a far faster growth rate than “the cost of living, the productivity of the economy, and the stock market.”

CEO compensation isn’t the pay for performance its advocates claim. Instead, it is unmoored from any rational basis.

We may blame corporate boards for allowing this abuse to happen, a breach of their duty of stewardship, but why isn’t more being done about it?

Those in the best position to press for changes in executive pay are the giant fund companies like BlackRock Inc. and Vanguard Group Inc….. Vanguard Chairman and CEO Bill McNabb said in an interview last fall that rather than only rely on proxy votes, the firm has been pressuring companies behind the scenes to pare back outrageous packages. That approach makes sense, given that the indexing giant, for the most part, can’t simply sell the stock of uncooperative companies without uncoupling their funds from the indexes they are trying to track.

It looks like passive investing is part of the problem. Membership of an index ensures that a stock will be supported by passive, index investors. Plus boards can use stock buy-backs to support their own stock price, giving them partial control over the major performance metric on which they are rewarded.

Only active fund managers will dig deeper and rate management on their ability to create long-term value. Unfortunately their influence over stock prices is shrinking.

Source: Excessive CEO Pay for Dumb Luck – Bloomberg View

Posted on

Forward P/E turns back up

Dow Jones Industrials

Dow Jones Industrial Average continues to climb, heading for a target of 21000. Rising troughs on Twiggs Money Flow signal strong buying pressure.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

The S&P 500 follows a similar path.

S&P 500

With the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) close to historic lows around 10 percent.

VIX

However, at least one investment manager, Bob Doll, is growing more cautious:

“…we think the easy gains for equities are in the rearview mirror and we are growing less positive toward the stock market. We do not believe the current bull market has ended, but the pace and magnitude of the gains we have seen over the past year are unlikely to persist.”

Forward P/E Ratio

Bob Doll’s view is reinforced by recent developments with the S&P 500 Forward Price-Earnings Ratio. I remarked at the beginning of February that the Forward P/E had dropped below 20, signaling a time to invest.

Actual earnings results, however, have come in below earlier estimates — shown by the difference between the first of the purple (latest estimate) and orange bars (04Feb2017) on the chart below.

S&P 500 Forward Price-Earnings Ratio

In the mean time the S&P 500 index has continued to climb, driving the Forward P/E up towards 20.

This is not yet cause for alarm. We are only one month away from the end of the quarter, when Forward P/E is again expected to dip as the next quarter’s earnings (Q1 2018) are taken into account.

S&P 500 Forward Price-Earnings Ratio

But there are two events that would be cause for concern:

  1. If the index continues to grow at a faster pace than earnings; and/or
  2. If forward earnings estimates continue to be revised downward, revealing over-optimistic expectations.

Either of the above could cause Forward P/E to rise above 20, reflecting over-priced stocks.

Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy only when others are fearful.

~ Warren Buffett

Posted on

S&P 500 Price-Earnings suggest time to buy

The forward Price-Earnings (PE) Ratio for the S&P 500, depicted by the blue line on the chart below, recently dipped below 20. In 2014 to 2105, PEs above 20 warned that stocks were overpriced.

We can see from the green and orange bars on the chart that the primary reason for the dip in forward PE is more optimistic earnings forecasts for 2017.

S&P500 Earnings Per Share and Forward PE Ratio

We can also see, from an examination of the past history, that each time forward PE dipped below 20 it was an opportune time to buy.

History also shows that each time the forward PE crossed to above 20 it was an opportune time to stop buying. Not necessarily a sell signal but a warning to investors to tighten their stops.

Sector Performance

Quarterly sales figures are only available to June 2016 but there are two stand-out sectors that achieved quarterly year-on-year sales growth in excess of 10 percent: Consumer Discretionary and Health Care.

S&P500 Quarterly Sales Growth

Interestingly, apart from Energy where there has been a sharp drop in earnings, sectors with the highest forward PE (based on estimated operating earnings) are the defensive sectors: Consumer Staples and Utilities. While Consumer Discretionary and Health Care are more middle-of-the-pack at 16.7 and 15.4 respectively.

S&P500 Forward PE Ratio by Sector

Posted on

Nasdaq breaks its Dotcom high

Tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 broke through its all-time high at 4900, first reached in the Dotcom bubble of 1999/2000. Follow-through above 5000 would signal another primary advance. Bearish divergence on 13-week Twiggs Money Flow warns of medium-term selling pressure, possibly profit-taking at the long-term high.

Nasdaq 100

The daily chart of the S&P 500 also shows bearish divergence, but on 21-day Twiggs Money Flow, indicating only short-term selling pressure; reversal below zero would warn of a correction. Target for the advance is 2300*.

S&P 500 Index

* Target medium-term: 2100 + ( 2200 – 2000 ) = 2300

The chart below plots Forward PE (price-earnings ratio) against S&P 500 quarterly earnings. Apologies for the spaghetti chart but each line is important:

  • green bars = quarterly earnings
  • orange bars = forecast earnings (Dec 2016 to Dec 2017)
  • purple line = S&P 500 index
  • blue line = forward PE Ratio (Price/Earnings for the next 4 quarters)

S&P 500 Forward PE and Earnings

The recent peak in Forward PE was due to falling earnings. Price retreated at a slower rate than earnings as the setback was not expected to last. Forward PE has since declined as earnings recovered at a faster rate than the index. But now PE seems to be bottoming as the index accelerates. Reversal of the Forward PE to above 20 would be cause for concern, indicating stocks are highly priced and growing even more expensive, as the index is advancing at a faster pace than earnings.

Remember that the last five bars are only forecasts and actual results may vary. The only time that the market has seen a sustained period with a forward PE greater than 20 was during the Dotcom bubble. Not an experience worth repeating.

Posted on

Australia & Canada’s experience with equal weighted indices

Correction to my earlier post. Equal-weighted indices don’t always outperform cap-weighted indices, as with the S&P 500. Australia’s ASX 100 Equal Weighted Index underperformed the cap-weighted ASX 100, recording annual growth of 3.79% (EWI) compared to 5.28% for the ASX 100 on a total return basis over the last 10 years.

ASX 100 Equal Weighted Index compared to cap-weighted ASX 100

Canada’s TSX 60 Equal Weighted Index, on the other hand, mimics the S&P 500. Equal Weight achieved an returns of 6.17% over the last 10 years compared to 5.33% for the cap-weighted index.

TSX 60 Equal Weighted Index compared to cap-weighted TSX 60

I will investigate further why Australia bucks the trend but I suspect the banks play a major role. The ASX 300 Banks Index substantially outperforms the broad ASX 300 Index.

ASX 300 Banks Index compared to ASX 300

Posted on

Active managers and Index funds: How to avoid the pitfalls and get the best of both worlds

From James Kirby at The Australian:

Australia’s big fund managers are now openly bagging index funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs)….Keep away from index funds and ETFs, they cry, the market is too tough for investors to blindly follow an index-style fund when returns are as modest as we have seen in recent times….

But rather than flinging mud back at the active managers…. the passive brigade has instead made two killer moves.

The first move is to reveal quite plainly how the active managers are performing — and they are performing dismally.

The second move is to continually cut prices — or fees — to the point that active managers look very expensive indeed.

Dow Jones’ Indices versus Active Australia Scorecard:

Australian General Equity (Large-Cap) Funds

59.7% underperformed the S&P/ASX 200 Index over one year

69.2% underperformed the benchmark in a five-year period

International Equity General

80.7% underperformed the S&P Developed ex-Australia Large Cap Index in a one-year period

91.9% underperformed the benchmark in a five-year period

I have two major concerns with index funds:

First, index funds reward size, not performance. The bigger a corporation grows, and the bigger its weighting in the index, the more stock an index fund will buy. Over time the index is likely to grow increasingly dominated by a herd of dinosaurs — earning low returns on a large asset pool and unable/unlikely to adapt to change — headed for extinction.

Second, active fund managers perform a valuable role for the entire market, conducting in-depth research of industries, visiting companies and evaluating prospects and performance. Their resulting purchases and sales inform the entire market as to prospective value and under-pin long-term market value. Increasing dominance of passive index funds erodes this capability and will hasten the growth of my first concern.

An easy way to counter the first concern is to invest in equal-weighted index funds. These do not reward size, instead investing an equal amount in each stock in the index instead of weighting by market capitalization.

Apart from eliminating the size bias, the equal-weighted index has another major advantage. It out-performs cap-weighted indices by a sizable margin. The graph below shows the S&P 500 Equal-Weighted Index achieved an annual performance of 8.53% compared to 7.03% for the regular S&P 500 Index, over the last 10 years.

Performance Comparison: S&P 500 (TR) Index v. S&P 500 EWI (TR) Index

The only way to address the second concern is to keep a sizable part of your portfolio with active managers. Don’t blindly follow performance — last year’s winners are often this year’s losers — but follow managers with reasonable fees and proven long-term ability to outperform the index.

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper