Monday, August 30, 2010

A cautionary tale for bubblicious portfolios

What chart is this?

I am sure that a lot of you are thinking that it must be some internet stock.

Well, it could be: the chart resembles many which peaked in the 1999-2001 period. I recently looked at the stock prices for Microsoft (MSFT) - it peaked around $59 back then, and is currently in the $25-$30 range - about half its peak value. Intel (INTC) peaked in the $75 range, and is now in the $25-$30 range. Cisco (CSCO)? $77 then and $21-$28 recently.

But no, this is not from the tech sector. This is a cautionary tale of how inflated prices can get in one, or many, sectors during a bubble.

No, this is the behemoth drug maker Merck & Co (MRK). which peaked around the same era at $94 and is now in the $35-$40 range. You can pull up the charts for the other pharmaceutical giants, then and now, like Pfizer (PFE), Abbott Labs (ABT), Novatis (NVS), etc. and find the same cratering effect: most of these still haven't reached the halfway point of their bubble prices.

Have some things changed for both sectors? Sure - but not nearly to the extent implied by both a lost decade of price appreciation and, worse, price declines that could have eviscerated some over weighted portfolios.

One thing remains constant - investors, whether buying single companies or weighing into sectors via ETF's etc., have to be very cautious on the flavour of the year. Avoiding the most popular sectors, especially after several years of popularity, can be one of the best things you can do for your portfolio's health - and can help you get a good night's sleep too.

Disclosure: No positions.
On a blog aggregator? Go here, The Confused Capitalist, for additional content and our growing focus on climate change investment strategy.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Investment Earworm Contest Winner - Rick

A fairly recent posting of mine challenged readers to identify the speaker of the following comment, together with the asset class he was speaking of.

The comment is, essentially, this:

Commodities wins both the optimistic and the pessimistic scenario."



Rick has correctly identified the speaker and the asset class as being Jim Rogers (the commodity guru) and speaking of the commodity asset class.

What Rogers is saying here, is that if the emerging economies continue their assent - and with it demand for commodities - then commodities prices will continue rising, even if inflation is benign. This is the optimistic scenario.

On the other hand, if inflation starts to run away, due to the extremely high levels of monetary and fiscal stimulus with continuing budgetary deficits (the pessimistic scenario), then the only thing that'll hold their value, are "real" assets, namely commodities and possibly real estate.

Congratulations Rick. You will receive your book choice, The Ultimate Dividend Playbook, shortly.


On a blog aggregator? Go here, The Confused Capitalist, for additional content and our growing focus on climate change investment strategy.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Compass Minerals International Inc (CMP) likely a future victim in climate change?

As this blog begins to grow its focus on climate change investment strategy, I thought I'd highlight a company that was mentioned in the fine Josh Peters book, The Ultimate Dividend Investor Playbook, which I recently reviewed.  In the book, Mr. Peters, of Morningstar, mentions Compass Minerals International Inc. (CMP) as then (sometime in 2006 or 2007) perhaps being a candidate worthy of consideration for addition to a dividend stock portfolio.

Compass' main business then, as now, "is highway deicing salt, so its profitability is determined by cold, snowy, or icy winter weather." So says Morningstar. 

Morningstar currently provides a three star (average) rating to Compass, meaning they perceive its total stock return outlook to be approximately comparable to the universe of stocks they cover. Owing to a wide economic moat (in this case, a low cost to bring the salt to market), balanced against other factors, is what produces the overall three star average rating.

Me - I think that Compass is an implosion waiting to happen, whether it's this coming winter season, the next year, or in three of the next six years. This is not owing to any prescient thoughts on my part about debt, customer loss, or competitors acting irrationally by pricing below the cost of production. No, I worry about the climate. Notwithstanding occasional contrary hickups, winters are growing shorter and less severe. The scientists say so, and it matches the global warming theory (first postulated by Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius, in 1896).

Trying to continue to maintain salt volumes in the face of this reality, is the investment equivalent of expecting buggy whip makers to continuing to pump out similar volumes, something Morningstar apparently expects, as their quote in their outlook on growth states ...

Growth: We expect long-run demand growth for Compass' salt to be quite minimal. Earnings growth will depend on increasing sales prices and cost efficiencies. (emphasis not in original)


Note that they do NOT say they expect growth for salt to actually decline for Compass, something that can realistically be expected, unless competitors throw in the towel, and they gain a larger share of a shrinking pie. Even if that were to occur, most investors recognize the futility of fighting a secular "headwind". No pun intended.

Climate change investment strategy, as I will begin to explore over the coming while, involves a very few great opportunities, some good opportunities, and a whole lot of businesses to stay away from, unless you have the stomach for shorting stocks.

Compass is one example of a stock I'd be extremely cautious of getting involved with, especially since it is priced at roughly the same PE ratio as the S&P500.

No, if I were you, and thinking of holding Compass for a year or more, I would take Morningstar's rating, in this case, "with a grain of salt".

Disclosure: CMP - no investment position.


On a blog aggregator? Go here, The Confused Capitalist, for additional content and our growing focus on climate change investment strategy.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Book Review - The Ultimate Dividend Playbook

Any investor worth his or her salt, who doesn't want to rely on the vagaries of capital appreciation to grow their net worth, and who would readily lean on the best shortcut in the world to wealth creation, dividends, simply must seek to understand them. Numerous studies have shown that dividend paying stocks outperform all other stock classes, and usually by a wide margin of 2% or more annually.

This book, by Josh Peters of Morningstar, helps the investor understand the case for dividends, and how to select individual stocks for a modestly diversified portfolio. While many investors may think dividends are suitable for income investors only, the fact is that dividend paying stocks should be a or the major stock holding style in most investors' portfolios.

Why? Well, as Josh points out, it's very simply because they outperform most other stocks, and generally with reduced volatility. So, it's a more stable, higher-returning investment. What could be better than that?

As Josh points out, dividends are a sign of many things investors like to see:
  • An alignment of managements and the investors interest (return of, and return on, cash);
  • Corporate self-discipline (have to keep grinding out the cash to pay and grow the dividend);
  • Financial strength;
  • And a Valuation basis (dividends can show when a stock is overpriced, and underpriced).
Josh covers economic moats, which he likes all his dividend-paying stocks to have, as well as return on equity (see his book, or mine, on why this is important). He suggests looking at the trend of the dividend (the trend is your friend, in terms of projecting the future), so see how the dividend might grow into the future.

He covers handy items like payout ratios, high yielding stocks (generally, be careful) and high payout ratios (look out if ratio has been continuing to rise).

In the book, Josh covers especially two items that make the book an entirely worthwhile addition to any investors bookshelf: the dividend drill, and the dividend drill return model.

The dividend drill focuses on three items;
  1. Is the dividend safe;
  2. Will the dividend grow;
  3. What does the dividend stream tell me the stock is likely to return to me as a shareholder?
Attempting to answer these questions will help you decide whether or not a prospective stock investment is one that you can or should add to your portfolio.

In relation to #3 above (the total return from the stock), he also introduces one very handy shortcut (and investing is full of them, from PE ratios, to inventory turns, to PEG ratios). Think about the potential of the total return of the stock as the sum of the actual dividend yield, plus the likely growth rate of dividend over the next while, say ten years.

A couple of simple examples showing how the total return might be different for two stocks, is that one might be yielding a 5% return, and has recently been increasing the dividend by about 4% annually. If you think that increase would continue over the next decade or so, then the likely total return on that stock would be about 9% annually (5%+4%). In the case of a stock which has a lower initial yield, but is increasing the dividend more rapidly, the projected return might look like this; a 3% dividend yield, plus expected future dividend increase at 8% annually, suggests an 11% (3%+8%) total return.  The book is full of handy advice like this, written in a straightforward and uncomplicated style.

The book also details the more complicated (but not complex) Dividend Drill Return Model, which encourages you to think more deeply about the company and its prospects. Yes, it's more work, but relies only on elementary/grammar school arithmetic, so it's within the reach of virtually any investor.

I highly recommend this book, and thank Josh Peters for writing it. The information is handy, practical, simple, and timeless.

The Confused Capitalist

Monday, August 16, 2010

Retail Investors Indicate Bonds are lousy deal right now ....

The retail investor has long been a contra-indicator of what's truly both a timely and good investment ...

Firstly, they often have trouble knowing the difference between a savings vehicle (holding time frame of under five years, generally; and very low expected return) and an investment vehicle (holding time frame of over five years; and relatively high expected return).

Add to that the mistiming of buying and the comedy of errors reaches Shakespearean proportions. 

Municipal bond mutual funds that report their figures weekly reported $953.9 million in new money from investors during the week ended Aug. 11, according to Lipper FMI. That was the biggest weekly inflow since March, and heavier than all but 33 inflows since Lipper started tracking the data in 1992 — 970 weeks ago.

AND

Solender said because expectations are that the Federal Reserve’s target for interest rates will remain near zero well into next year, people are growing increasingly comfortable with the yields offered on municipal bonds — even though they have never been lower. (highlighting not in original)

The yield on a 10-year triple-A rated municipal bond sank below 2.5% for the first time last week, according to Municipal Market Data.

Article here

_____

As opposed to that, IndexArb reports that the current average dividend yield of all the S&P500 dividend-paying stocks is 2.51% (with a reasonable expectation of future dividend growth), yet the retail investor saver piles into the bond market, potentially locked into a 2.5% yield for 10 years.

Yikes!

The Confused Capitalist

Friday, August 13, 2010

Management Tinkering

The management of this blog is tinkering with the layout ... feel free to comment and let me know what you think ...


The Confused Capitalist

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Commodities Report

As predicted, wheat prices did indeed jump following the latest USDA report. Given the issues with flooding (1, 2, ) in other parts of the planet, eg South-East Asia, we can probably expect more upward price pressure on foodstuffs in the short-term.


Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!JW The Confused Capitalist

Investment Earworm Contest

Ever get a music earworm? Sometimes it happens with other things too.

As readers of this blog may suspect, my most prolific posting often comes when I am also doing the most investment reading. Obviously, one of those times is now.

The many earworms of Warren Buffett have worked on my investment thinking over the years. However, I recently caught another investment earworm which I just can't shake, because it seems to make far too much sense.

The investment earworm is, essentially, this:


.... (this asset class/type/sector/leaning) wins both the optimistic and the pessimistic scenario."

This was a recent utterance of a well known investor. The first one to name both the asset class/type/sector etc. and the investor, wins their choice of either of the two following good investment books:























Please post in the comments section, and I will monitor for the winner. The contest is open for the next two weeks - limit of one entry per day per person.


Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!












Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Outperformance comes many ways

There are many ways to outperform the general market, some adding incremental value here and there, such as finding undervalued individual companies, or staying away from seemingly overvalued sectors (bearing in mind of course, that over [under] valuations can stay that way for very long periods of time).

However, the one of the seemingly most riskiest ways is to find an unacknowledged secular tailwind, and ride it to outperformance. These are always present, but difficult to figure out how much return they'll produce, and how long the ride will go on for, or even when it will begin.

In some cases, like the tech sector beginning in the late 1980's, should have been very visible to figure out, and ride it for a very long period of time. Some, like the hard commodities boom, beginning in the very late 1990s, were a bit tougher to figure out, given the nearly two decades of very weak performance in that sector. Even if you figured it was on the cusp of a long term revival, it would have taken considerable courage to move against the thinking that had solidified over two decades: namely, that this was a poor investment area.

Today, soft commodities (eg foodstuffs, generally) and emerging markets (both personal holdings; GRU, RJA, DEM), seem like excellent bets to overweight a portfolio in, something I have been writing about for three years or more now. Will these bets produce the outperformance I think is available there?

When thinking about these types of potentially big portfolio moves, it might hearten you to think about what one of the deep management thinkers of the last century, Dr. W. Edwards Deming had to say about the unknowability of things .... which can reverberate in investment thinking ....

"The most important things cannot be measured."

"The most important things are unknown or unknowable."


Given that Dr. Deming was a statistician who preached quality improvement through process management and statistical output measurement to the ready post-war Japanese, the first comment might seem surprising, but he is simply acknowledging a fundamental truth. The quality of management, their philosophy, for example, simply can't be directly measured. These are, however, long-term drivers of corporate success.

The second comment simply builds on the first, and speaks to the relative unpredictability of the future, trends that may be building below the surface, or simply events that are virtually not predictable.

If you can keep these thoughts in mind, long enough to take advantage of the trend you have researched, thought about, and are willing to take a flyer on, then you too might enjoy outperformance in this way.


Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!

JW The Confused Capitalist

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

John Hussman - Valuator extraordinaire?

A short while ago, I chided Dr. John Hussman for not properly considering the increased demand for stocks in a posting of his, and for suggesting that a 6.7% annual return was inadequete for stocks.

However, I also have to note that some of his prior predictions are, so far, spot on track. In February 2005, John suggested that a valuation trend for the next decade, suggested a potential return, based on historical average and median trends, portended a 2 to 3% annual return over the next decade. To date - five and a half years in - after adjusting for dividends, the SPY SPDR (S&P500 index) has produced an annual return of under 1%, while the DIA SPDR (Dow Jones index) has produced just 2.5% annually. While John may seem like a perma-bear, you would be unwise not to consider his thoughts on various valuation issues.



Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!

JW The Confused Capitalist

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Big price jump following next crop report

The next major USDA international crop report is due August 12, 2010. Watch for a big jump in prices thereafter ... surprise to the upside folks (unless you are a humanitarian, in which case you'll consider it as a crash to the downside) ...


The classic definition of inflation, as I remember it from my college days, is "Too much money, chasing too few goods." Most concerned with inflation these days have all the argument on the "too much money" side of the equation - does it arise from monetary issues, or fiscal imprudence? They totally forget the other side of the equation, because it rarely is the problem - the "too few goods." Watch for this to be the difference in the coming years, as agricultural production declines ("too few goods") begin to become part of the "new normal".

Quote of the day:

Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it.
- GMO's Jeremy Grantham

As a side-bar note, I get tired of dealing with dum-dums who, for reasons of mental and emotional convenience, want to continue denying global warming. The comment forum is open as always, but if you disagree with what real, professional climate scientists say, please take it up directly with them. If you have a stunning piece of scientific evidence that disproves one side or the other, don't waste time on my channel, write a paper, get it peer-reviewed, and then published in a reputable journal.


Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!

JW The Confused Capitalist

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Wheat Prices Jumpin' - Global Warmin' to blame

Has anyone been checkin' the news lately 'bout wheat prices - they's a jumpin'.

Hello people - is anyone really gunna start to take gobal warming seriously - like the massive crop failures; forests a burnin' everywhere... Or are we gunna continue to pretend everything is alright?

We are a seriously fussked up species ... not a happy camper today ... no ... just start clicking on the various weather network reports, and crop reports ... you wouldn't be too happy either ... if any of us had half a brain, or half a heart ... we might be inclined to takle this problem ... strawberry fields forever people ...

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!

JW The Confused Capitalist

Monday, August 02, 2010

Can't see the forest for the trees

I couldn't decide what to entitle this post, but ultimately settled on the above caption. Leading contenders were ... Looking backwards doesn't help you going forward ... Driving by the rear view mirror a recipe for disaster ... I'm a tree hater ...

Anyway, the theme here is trees and thinking about the future ... I've recently read many articles suggesting forest land has historically been a good investment, and is a good hedge against inflation. The fact that big institutions like Harvard and various hedgies like it, obviously isn't too bad for leading the "me too" crowd to think it might be a good investment. I have to say though, that trees scare the crap out of me.

With global warming accelerating, as anyone who lives in a moderately dry forest belt can tell you, the idea that you can get a reliable return from forest land/trees is an open question in my mind. As I have watched our summer "weather" grow to include a period of smoke haze for one or two weeks, from fires near and far, I have to tell you I don't think the prospects are promising. If invested in a single specific company, you could well see your total investment wiped out or severely impaired by a major forest fire; the number and severity of fires seems to be rising rapidly. The open question relating to risk/reward in my mind is this:

  • Will the increased prices for the remaining trees be sufficient to offset the obvious forest wipe-outs that are going to occur?
I am doubtful that sufficient price escalation will occur (or if it does, it'll be so high that it will foster the production of substitute products) and is contrasted against the possibility of severe value impairment on any particular specific forest asset as it burns down. In my mind, on a go-forward globally-warmed planet, I can't think this is an investment I want any part of, at this time.

However, if you are only thinking about the past, driving by the rear view mirror as it were, then you would be likely to miss the impact that global warming might have on such an investment.

NEWS FLASH: Russia is dealing with its' hottest recorded summer temperatures, and one-quarter of a million people have now been deployed to fight forest and peat fires.

As a side-bar note, I get tired of dealing with dum-dums who, for reasons of mental and emotional convenience, want to continue denying global warming. The comment forum is open as always, but if you disagree with what real, professional climate scientists say, please take it up directly with them. If you have a stunning piece of scientific evidence that disproves one side or the other, don't waste time on my channel, write a paper, and get it peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!

JW The Confused Capitalist

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Employee compensation still seriously messed up

No, this isn't an issue with your average unionized or non-unionized shmo worker. It's a complaint about the "man at the top", the CEO, CFO, CIO, CCO, CRO ... (OK, I made the last one up) ...


It's about board's doing their duty to the owners of the company, even if they are transitory traders, and making sure that the pay of the high level executives are reasonable. What is reasonable? Weeeell, if you need an executive compensation firm to provide you some base thinking around that, then you are too dumb to be a director. So please quit now.


When the compensation levels begin to look like some stratospheric sports hero - overpaid but at the peak of his game - you are paying far, far, too much. Pay them in shares that must be held for long periods of time, in addition to a reasonable base salary. And everything measured on performance, relative ONLY to the industry they are in. Did I really need to tell you this? Grow some balls, as my kids say, and do what is right. Stop looking for an executive compensation firm to give you the dirty, so you can continue do what is wrong about Wall Street.


Want to feel good about yourself? Stand up for a principle for a change. Me, and other shareowners, are begging for it. Stop gold-bricking - both the board, and for the overpaid executives.


Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!







JW The Confused Capitalist

Friday, July 30, 2010

Financial Advisors/Blogosphere asleep to global warming

With a notable few exceptions (1, 2, 3) the impact of global warming on future returns of virtually all investment activities remains un-noted and undiscussed by financial advisors and the financial blogosphere. They are generally asleep - or worse - unconscious to the threat to global warming. Even from the strictly narrow and selfish point of view of market returns, they are failing their clients and readers in not discussing this widely and frequently.

The cause of my latest missive was the front page of Canada's Globe & Mail yesterday, replete with charts, graphs and discussion of the latest release (July 28th) of the annual State of the Climate report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (complete report [224 pages], or highlights [10 pages]). Given that all 10 indicators pointed to continued global warming, would it have been unreasonable to expect that at least a few financial bloggers/advisors to discuss this, and the short, medium and long term portfolio implications?

Apparently. A quick search around various financial blog aggregators revealed a collective yawn - nothing, or virtually nothing. A collective sigh went out, and the children all went back down for their afternoon naps.

Unfortunately, we have now reached a point where the temperature of each year as it passes, is now higher than the average year of the past decade. Further, each passing decade is now setting new records for warming, compared with the prior decades. Here's a couple of highlights from the highlight report:

Continued temperature increases will threaten many aspects of our society, including coastal cities and infrastructure, water supply and agriculture. People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created – one that’s warmer and more extreme.

The report noted some of the extreme events during the past year:

• In Brazil, extreme rainfall in the Amazon basin caused the worst flood in a century. Forty people were killed and 376,000 were left homeless.
• In southeastern South America, the wettest November in 30 years displaced thousands of people.
• In northwest England, heavy rainfall flooded the Lake District, setting new records for river flows and damaging 1,500 properties.
• In northern Iberia and southern France, a North Atlantic storm raked the land with record winds, downed power lines, closed airports and blocked railroads.
•Three intense heat waves broke temperature records in Australia. One of them was accompanied by high winds that fanned bushfires, killing 173 people.
By the way, with it all the rage to talk about the possibility of deflation (a distinct short term possibility, I admit), I will go out on a limb and say that the longer term picture is very disturbing, and includes the very high possibility for runaway inflation. All starting at the beginning of all stored wealth - food. Watch for it there first.

In defence of saying nothing however, these are the kind of dummies they have to deal with ... contrast and compare kids ...

Scientists views
Investors views

At the end of the day, however, you are supposed to either a) inform and challenge your audience (bloggers) or b) protect and grow assets (advisors). Your silence embarrasses you.

Well, now that this commercial intermission has awoken a few fellow bloggers and perhaps to a financial advisor or two, the rest of you can fall back to sleep to la la land, where the sky is beautiful all day long and nothing ever changes. Strawberry fields forever.

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!JWThe Confused Capitalist





Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Insurance costs money

Portfolio insurance, e.g., hedging, costs money.

Warren Buffett has said in the past that he'd prefer a company that can grow its earnings at an average, but lumpy, 12% per annum, compared to one that can grow its earning a smooth 10%.

That's because he's well aware that the compounding effect of the two rates over a long period of time will produce significantly different end values.

In a similar vein, I want to discuss the cost of portfolio insurance. This can be considered to be anything that smooths out the rate of return for the investor. For most of us retail folks, and for most brokers, this insurance comes in the form of inverse ETFs.

Inverse ETFs are usually bought when the market is trending downwards, and many brokers use some sort of technical signal, like when the 200 day moving average falls below some other shorter term average (notwithstanding that these signals no longer appear to work 1, 2).

If you accept the general premise that the stock market virtually always ends up higher after long periods of time, e.g. 10-20 years, then buying inverse ETFs can only have a adverse effect on your return rate over time, especially if they are bought midway through a downtrend. Inverse ETFs explain this themselves in their prospectus' and there are the trading costs themselves to also consider.

The problem is usually further exacerbated since most folks have no idea of how far the market is going to decline and, with all due respect to brokers and their technical signals, neither do they. Using a 200 day moving average as your sell signal, usually means that the market has already been drifting (or vomiting) downwards for some period of time, so you would be buying insurance when its utility is already lessened.

The only reason to buy it, is if it helps you stay in the market, and earn a long term average of 8%, as opposed to buying some other smoother, but inferior returning, investment vehicle.

Myself, I'd prefer a lumpy 9%, to a smooth 8%, thank you very much.

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content! JW The Confused Capitalist

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Is 6.7% inadequete return for stock investments?

John Hussman, in his latest missive, suggests that the S&P500 is poised to return about 6.7% annually over the next ten years, based on historical averages, etc. Furthermore, based on other historical averages, eg the return from the stock market itself, he suggests that this isn't an attractive valuation, and the S&P500 could very well breach the March 2009 lows (not all that an attractive valuation in his viewpoint either).

I certainly don't argue with the idea of 10 year normalized earnings producing a better indication of total return on a forward basis. However, to point at some of these historical examples of market lows and suggest that they might be reasonably attainable, isn't probably all that thoughtful.

Thirty or forty years ago, the average middle class person was not involved in the stock market whatsoever. Period.

That simply is not the case today, and it's doubtful those days would return soon, if ever. Financial advisors, for all their warts, have served a large purpose in educating the public to accept that ownership of a business/share ownership, is a lasting and real way to create wealth. Many savers of yesteryear have been replaced by investors of today.

Therefore, the underlying demand curve is different today - so it isn't logical to expect valuation metrics of the market to be reproduced today - sans very extreme market events, which would need to last a considerable period of time.

Finally, while 6.7% may seem too low for Mr. Hussman, what are the alternatives to that?

  • Real estate - dead money for 5-10 years;
  • Bonds - much lower returns;
  • CD's - don't even go there;
  • T-Bills?
  • Mortgage backed securities - please ...
  • Commodities - perhaps, but very volatile and, realistically, subject to contago for the average investor.

In this environment, 6.7% isn't actually as bad as it may have sounded historically and, anyway, those days are gone, and have been gone for some period of time now. In my book, I suggested some 13 years ago, that having an average S&P 500 return of more than 5% over T-Bills (the then historical average), probably over-stated the risk profile of those companies in their aggregate.

Of course, there are ways to increase your chances of exceeding 6.7% but, realistically, this is the context to think about stocks over the next decade. Does that make them a bad deal? Not when you consider the alternatives. Mr. Hussman needs to tune himself in to the new reality (15 years and counting now).

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!JWThe Confused Capitalist

Morningstar ... Hello, hello .... HELLO?

Long-time readers here know that I am a bit of a Morningstar fan, appreciating their truly independent coverage, and an unconflicted (eg investment banking activities) viewpoint, that so tainted any so-called independent research that emanated from the so-called major institutions.

Nevertheless, I have to call them out today. Came across a residential apartment owner, Equity Residential (EQR), to whom they assign a "three-star" rating (average). They estimate the fair value of the shares at just $35 (last traded at one-third OVER than level, at $45). They also say the business has no moat, and say their valuation is subject to high uncertainty (two factors that usually lower their star rating). Furthermore, they estimate the forward PE as 64, and the current price/cash flow as 19.

They also add...

In the near term, Equity Residential's main geographies are suffering from high unemployment, and a deteriorated housing market. All else equal, high unemployment and consequential lower job mobility lowers housing demand, and makes it difficult for landlords to increase rents. Equity Residential's ownership share of a given metropolitan area is, by and large, less than 3%, so it can't readily affect the sector's pricing discipline.
On the positive side, they note that EQR has above-average balance sheet strength, leading to the potential for future residential "trophy" acquisitions. However, they also say ...


While we think this environment will present the firm with more attractive acquisition opportunities, we do not bake unannounced acquisitions into our valuation model ...
The final kick is the closing statement that they think EQR can earn 7% on its capital over the next ten years, LOWER than their estimated cost of capital at 7.9%.

So, let's see if I have this all correctly: overvalued, no moat, trading at high income/cash-flow metrics, weak "same-store" price increase income prospects going forward from existing portfolio, no pricing pricing power in the market, and can't earn its cost of capital.

Jack ... JACK ... assign this one an "average" rating, on the account of the "magic beans" that the CEO has in his pocket.

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content! JW The Confused Capitalist

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Too harsh - Johnson & Johnson stock price

Fund manager Eddy Elfenbein, over at Crossing Wall Street, has recently been on about the dividend yield/stock price of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), which is currently yielding about 3.8% on a forward basis. Johnson & Johnson is routinely cited for winning various awards involving titles like "Most Admired Company ...", or "Best Managed ...".

While the JNJ stock price recently stumbled on a revised outlook for the year, investors should remember that this is a very robust and diversified business that has had a long history of growth. To be able to acquire such a nice dividend stream (and at only a ~40% earnings payout ratio), together with acquiring a nice robust business is an attractive prospect indeed.

Morningstar provides a description of the business as follows:
Johnson & Johnson holds a leadership role in diverse health-care segments,including medical devices, over-the-counter medicines, and several pharmaceutical markets. Contributing about 40% of total revenue, the pharmaceutical division boasts several industry-leading drugs, including rheumatoid arthritis drug Remicade. The medical device and diagnostics group brings in more than 35% of sales, with the company holding controlling positions in many areas, including DePuy's orthopedics and Ethicon Endo-Surgery's surgical devices. The consumer division largely rounds out the remaining business lines. The 2007 acquisition of Pfizer's PFE consumer business solidified Johnson & Johnson's position in this market.

They currently award it a five star rating (their highest, suggesting out-sized returns going forward), provide a fair value estimate of $80, low uncertainty rating, and indicate it is a wide moat business.

IndexArb currently calculates the average dividend yield of the S&P500 at 1.8% for all index companies, and 2.5% for just the dividend paying ones. Investors should ask themselves if JNJ is really worse than the average S&P500 company? (Not!)

Eddie is right: notwithstanding a minor bruise or two, what's not to like about this company, and especially the stock, at this price ($59; 3.8% dividend yield)?

Jay to Stock Market: "Man you are harshing me out!"

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!

JW The Confused Capitalist

Automatically generated links follow

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Cranky Barry Ritholtz

Sure, Barry Ritholtz is cranky about the palaver of the unthinking about the Goldman Sachs case.

Oh, by the way, he's right.

The case did turn out to be a slam-dunk, otherwise the settlement would never have occurred so quickly, and for such a large amount.

The fact that the fine is a fraction of GS earnings is completely irrelevant as Barry points out.

The outflow of the case is now such that the initial beat-down on the stock from ~$180 to ~$130/share was perhaps due in part to the compelling case that Barry made. While I don't recall Barry mentioning any potential fine or settlement figures, now that those figures are known, and assuming that civil liability is held to under 10x that amount, suggests that the beat-down on the price was just about right.

Industrial strength caution: That assumes, of course, that the same unthinking commentators are right about that 10x being the maximum figure.

No matter what, if you thought about it for even 5 minutes, you'd realize that a case of "malfeasance-corporate-lite" isn't all that shocking today, nor was it really likely to damage Goldies franchise by much. After all, making money with an occasional touch of dodgy behaviour isn't like withdrawing from the "Bank of Fidelity" in marriage; money flows where money grows. And Goldie remains a powerful money tree.

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content! JW The Confused Capitalist

Automatically generated links (might or might not be relevant):