Musing on the Markets : Globalization

Beyond the Sound Bite: An Interview with Alexander Young

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:35:00 GMT

In my second interview with the International Equity Strategist for Standard and Poors we discussed the S&P economic outlook, the rebound in global trade, the advised investment focus on global cyclical leadership, and risks of an economic double dip.

The length of the interview is 12 minutes 05 seconds.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Vinny Catalano, CFA, Global Investment Strategist with Blue Marble Research publishes the "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter, which contains the market beating Model Growth Portfolio. To learn about subscribing as well as other benefits, click here.

V Shaped Rally ≠ V Shaped Recovery

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:56:00 GMT

Yesterday’s posted interview with David Malpass brings into sharp focus a key aspect of the US economic recovery that far too few investors are tuned into. Specifically, the underappreciated dynamic that second, third, and lower tier companies (the backbone of employment growth in the US) may not deliver the much anticipated above consensus earnings results this and future quarters ahead. Moreover, as the backbone of employment growth, weakness in second, third, and lower tier companies act as a depressant on wages, hours worked, and consumer sentiment. Therefore, how the US (and global economy) will reach a sustainable recovery without the US consumer is a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

Lacking a large exposure to global markets (where the growth is and where the weak US dollar helps deliver strong short term results), the SMIDS (small and mid cap companies) on down are vulnerable to disappointing investors with at or below consensus earnings results next month. In this regard, David points out in the interview that above consensus earnings results this coming 3Q09 for large and mega cap multi nationals may come to pass via pricing power pressures on all companies offset by volume growth courtesy a cannibalization of the units growth to lower tier companies.

(As a reminder, 2Q09 bottom line results surprised to the upside thanks to cost cutting, as top line growth was largely in line with expectations. In the current quarter ending next week, expectations are for above consensus earnings results produced by top line growth that surprises to the upside (with cost cutting is largely done). With the US economy still on its knees, it is hard to see how US domestic top line growth (revenues = price x units sold) can surprise to the upside. How this happens for companies that will not benefit from global markets (and a weak dollar) is a mystery soon to be revealed.)

Investment Strategy Implications

In a liquidity driven stock market, all logic goes out the window – for a while. Justifications for over valued markets abound. And buy high to sell higher becomes the music that all performance based investors must dance to. Phrases like “melt up”, thanks to expectations that the $3.5 trillion sitting in near zero percent money market funds will be forced into equities, is the support rendered for P/E ratios that warrant above average (i.e. 15 times) levels. Sound familiar?

In such times, a prudent investor is a contrarian investor. Momentum driven/fast money “investors” awaiting sideline money to sell to on the basis of melt ups and a sustainable global economic recovery rooted in a deleveraging US consumer may turn out to be a fantasy bubble about to burst.

Vinny Catalano, CFA, is President and Global Investment Strategist with Blue Marble Research (BMR). BMR publishes the "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter, which contains the market beating Model Growth Portfolio. To learn about subscribing as well as other benefits, click here.

Beyond the Sound Bite: An Interview with Vitaliy Katsenelson

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:27:00 GMT

My conversation with the Director of Research for Investment Management Associates and author of "Active Value Investing: Making Money in Range-bound Markets" includes the investment significance re the wide gap between operating earnings and GAAP earnings, reasons to doubt China's published growth rate, the sustainability of the rally in gold, and a major contrarian call on healthcare.

The length of the interview is 17 minutes 58 seconds.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

The 3 Phases of this Bull Market

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:41:00 GMT

The stock market rally since early March appears to have three distinct phases to it.

The first phase was the backing off from the economic abyss. The second phase was a bounce to fair value normalcy. The third phase (the one we are in now) is what I would call the return to business as usual phase (or “Recession. What recession?).

From where I sit, the first two phases were justified on many levels. Both phases featured massive amounts of government intervention combined with strong technicals to produce a rally to fair value. The elimination of the tail risk of the Great Depression II was followed by the above consensus macro economic readings (my MERI indicator), which was reinforced by the above consensus earnings results of 2Q09. Stocks rose to a reasonable fair value. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, at this point the seeds of questionable earlier decisions began to bear fruit. (Now, this going to sound very libertarian, so here goes.) Instead of pursuing the necessary cleansing process that all excesses produce, the Obama administration (which includes the US Treasury and the “independent” Federal Reserve) opted for a massive debt transference from the private to the public sector with the hope that time will heal all wounds. Along with this decision to socialize the bad behavior of the private sector most responsible for the crisis, the financial services industry, the Obama administration supported its core structure built on the laissez-faire era of the past two decades, accepting the largely unsubstantiated argument that financial innovation is a vital and necessary good for the economy.

With the government’s tacit support of the status quo, the investment mood shifted from fear and concern to hope and then enthusiasm.

The evidence of this mood shift back to the animal spirits days of yore came from a logical source – the financial services industry, the very sector of the global economy that provided the financial innovation grease to the out of control freight train of credit. And what better symbolic locomotive than Goldman Sachs, whose earnings report of July 14th whistled the bad old days were back in action. At this point, the Obama administration swung into action – with silence.

With its absence of outrage, the increasingly politically tone deaf Obama administration sent the public policy signal that its okay to bring the world economy to its knees, its okay to get bailed out with taxpayer money, its okay to shrink the competitive landscape (via Bear and Lehman’s demise), and its okay to return to the way things were – big profits and in your face fat bonuses.

The product of this wink and nod to Wall Street was the backlash at town hall meetings, which were as much about fairness as they were about healthcare reform concerns, a paranoid view of government, and a reactionary view of what constitutes being an American. It also produced an enthusiasm for stocks and an implied return to the bad old days.

Investment Strategy Implications

When you combine all these factors with the massive amount of investment capital ($3.5 trillion) still sitting in the near zero interest rate money market sidelines, the rising belief among many institutional investors that P/Es above their historical average are justified in the current low inflation environment, and the fledgling confidence that the global economy is on the mend* (along with the blind faith that the economic data from China is real), it is understandable how valuation levels could get to where they are today – stretched.

The investment question then becomes, “Is this a solid enough foundation upon which sustainable bull markets are built?” I have my doubts.

*I suggest reading Nouriel Roubini's comments in yesterday's FT.

The End User Dilemma

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:02:00 GMT

Back on August 3rd subscribers to my weekly newsletter - Sectors and Styles Strategy Report - read the following:

"China may become the bigger fly in the bullish ointment. Unlike the US, China has spent all of its stimulus package money not on consumer demand related areas (where it is most needed) but on more infrastructure projects. Since the US consumer is and will remain in balance sheet repair mode for a while and developed economy consumers (Europe and Japan) reluctant and/or unable to pick up the slack, end user (consumer) demand must materialize from emerging economies. With savings rates very high in China and other developing economies, expectations of V-shaped global economy recovery of a sustainable nature (meaning balanced and asset bubble free) seem fairly unlikely.

Therefore, a close eye should be kept on China and the very real prospect that a bubble burst may occur in that country. Should such an event occur, the global growth story becomes highly suspect, and equity values based on a global V-shaped recovery and expansion very problematic."

At the end of the day, somebody has got to buy something from someone else. The government may be the lender of last resort but it is not the buyer of last resort. That title belongs you and me - the consumer. And, despite its best Keynesian wishes, the prospect of demand being a guaranteed result of fiscal stimuli remains an unresolved mystery. Therefore, as helpful as next year's conveniently politically-timed US stimulus package will be, it cannot be, nor should be, counted on as lifting the world economy out of its end user dilemma. Moreover, government schemes like "cash for clunkers" get you only so far. They're like a life preserver keeping one's economic head just above the water, and nothing more.

Investment Strategy Implications

When stocks moved away from the abyss a certain sense of relief was taken to a modestly enthusiastic extreme. The more optimistic drank the valuation kool-aid of born again bullish investment strategists. "The more things change, the more they remain the same" became the mantra as business as usual replaced the panic-driven mindset - business most unusual.

With the past few days of market decline, perhaps reality will begin to sink into the valuation equation. Hopefully (but not likely), the vital focus on what is necessary for a sustainable global economic recovery will take center stage. And with it a concentrated effort to appreciate the end user dilemma.

When Goldman Talks, Investors Listen

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:46:00 GMT

For the past two months, I have made the argument that above consensus macro economic data would lead to above consensus earnings results and that investors would see the evidence of this as 2Q09 earnings season got underway. Based on the reports issued thus far, this argument has won the day as above consensus earnings results have matched the above consensus macro economic reports preceding them. Accordingly, stocks responded.

The second part of my argument was that such positive data would eventually encourage bottom up analysts (along with many investment strategists and top down economists) to reassess their more cautionary views and begin to raise their full year earnings expectations for this and next year. This, too, has begun to occur – none more significantly than from the investment strategy folks over at Goldman.

In a research report published yesterday, the Goldman strategists raised their estimates of S&P 500 operating earnings for this and next year - from $40 to $52 and from $63 to $75, for 2009 and 2010, respectively. In the process, the group estimated the target fair value for the S&P 500 at 1060 – ten points above my best guesstimate for the year (as reported in the Wall Street Journal on December 30, 2008) and my more evolved view of the same number based on the simple math of the historical average P/E of 15 times a mid 2010 estimate of $70 = 1050. As John McLane (“Die Hard”) might say, “Welcome to the party, pal”.

With Goldman in tow and many fence-sitting traditional money managers and individual investors being forced to reconsider the wisdom of leaving $3.5 trillion in money market funds earning 0.1%, the more meaningful investment strategy question is “Where are we in the stock market cycle?”

Investment Strategy Implications

As expressed in this week’s research report to subscribers, stocks are clearly in extreme overbought territory at the top end of the range. A completed bottom has not occurred. Therefore, stagnation (at best) or a pullback (most likely) appears to be in the very short-term offing for stocks.

That said, each week provides more evidence that the global economy has moved further away from the economic abyss of early March. Now that monetary stimulus and creative governmental action has done its work, the bulk of the fiscal stimulus package (conveniently timed for the 2010 election cycle) will provide the needed power to move the economic needle from stabilization to growth.

Aided by the global growth story (from emerging economies) as well as the likely positive forces of the wealth effect (from higher financial asset values), corporations, having demonstrated their ability to manage solid results in times deep economic distress, should be able to generate very satisfactory earnings results in an overall improving global economic climate - including a modest contribution from the US consumer.

So, where are we in the stock market cycle?

Stocks appear to be well into a transitional phase – one in which sector (style, country, and regional) rotation will (must?) produce the new leadership necessary for a new bull market to sustain itself to 1050 and beyond. The rotation to new leadership coupled with a completed bottom are the stock market signs most worthy of investor attention.

In a Pig's Eye

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:48:00 GMT

Money has no soul.

There are times when investing is a very callous business. Such times are now when investors must dispassionately assess the investment consequences of the swine flu disease. In this regard, it is advisable to recognize that the economic (and thus investment) impact of the virus as being more systemic than specific*. While selected areas of the global economy will likely be impacted more than others – such as travel, the more significant impact to the markets rests in a rising risk factor via the uncertainty element. Therefore, whenever risk goes up, certain valuation model inputs also rise thereby pushing valuation levels lower. Hence, price declines.

Investment Strategy Implications

Right now, fears of the economic impact from a pandemic are more systemic than specific. In a fragile economic climate with most valuation readings at fair value and technical analysis readings neutral at best, it didn’t take much to tip the stock market balance to the downside. The equation is rather simple – risk (in the form of uncertainty) went up, prices go down.

In a larger context and on the assumption that a pandemic does not emerge, there is every reason to conclude that stocks are close to the end of their short-term run anyway. The tired, old adage “sell in May and go away” will likely be the case this year leaving only the boldly bullish to find the fundamental valuation and technical analysis justification for what has all the hallmarks of a bear market rally and proclaim the return of the bull. Therefore, the coldhearted investment effects of the pandemic fears are more one of timing the ensuing market pause (dip now, rally a bit, make a non confirmation high, then generally flatish for the summer) rather than precipitating a new down wave in stocks.

Now, For Another Soapbox Moment

Once again, like clockwork, the media seems to have concluded that the recent stock market decline is attributable almost exclusively to fears of a pandemic. For those less informed investors, this is what I call the “media mantra” – new news always explains why stocks go up or down on any given day. The accepted media logic to this is thus – professional investors (who dominate the trading activity) with their large research budgets and extensive experience are so naïve that they twist and turn with the news cycle. It’s as though a portfolio manager wakes up each morning prepared to make important investment decisions on the assets he/she manages based on the surprise (news) factor of the day. In my three decades on Wall Street, I know of no asset manager who acts in this manner, yet the media mantra beholden to the news cycle (and, more importantly, advertising revenues) sells this bizarro logic to the general public.

Obviously, there are times when news does move markets – but not without the fundamental and technical analysis underpinnings in place. Therefore, thenews becomes the catalyst for the investment circumstances already in place. Otherwise, how does one explain that the media regularly reports that stocks rise and fall for the same reason? (ex. “Stocks rose today because of good news.” “Stocks declined today because investors ignored the (same) good news.”)

*This point is also made by tomorrow's Beyond the Sound Bite guest, David Kotok.

In Defense of Financial Innovation

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:55:00 GMT

There is considerable talk (much of it rather regressive) about the future of the financial system. In one camp are the advocates of a return to basic banking. Think George Bailey and “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Paul Krugman, John Bogle, and Meredith Whitney appear to belong to this group. Then there are those who believe that the system should evolve from where it was, only with better oversight and far greater transparency. By all accounts, Secretary Geithner and Mohammed El-Erian belong to this group.

As unpopular as it currently may be, I’m on the side of the Treasury Secretary and PIMCO CEO for the following reasons:

I believe financial innovation must be allowed to grow and even flourish as the benefits of risk management and opportunistic investing through derivatives, structured finance, and other heretofore unknown instruments is vital to the complex world of globalization. Financial innovation allows for the more efficient use of capital in new and innovative ways thereby enabling greater growth potential across most markets and economies. Perhaps most importantly, as providers of global capital, financial innovation is important to the dominant players in the markets - major institutional investors (pension fund, endowments, hedge funds, etc) - and their ability to manage large sums of money in the vast and growing global markets and economy. They want it. Even need it.

The George Bailey model is simplification for its own sake. A Luddite-like natural recoil action to the pain and suffering caused by the failure of proper oversight and transparency. Moreover, the Bailey model would relegate the US financial institutions to a dumbed-down version of finance completely at odds with a globalized world and economic system (not to mention the unintended consequences of assets flowing to other, more forward-thinking markets). I believe Secretary Geithner sees and understands this and that is why, much to the consternation of many old school thinkers, he is intent on keeping the current financial infrastructure in place, just fix that which went out of control via limited oversight and inadequate transparency.

With better oversight and greater transparency, the benefits of financial innovation to the global economic system far outweigh the damage wrought by the inept supervision of a complex world of finance.

Think of it this way, did FDR blow up the stock market after the 1929 to 32 crash? What he did was create the SEC, which served the system well until the free market ideologues got control of it over the past several decades and, with the aid of financial innovation, allowed the animal spirits to run roughshod over common sense. Another example would be the Internet and the tech bubble blow up. Did technology innovation stop because of Enron and WorldCom and the multitudes of dotcom implosions? Of course not.

Financial innovation is a tool. And like any tool, it can be used for good or ill. You don't ban knives because someone gets stabbed. You don't ban guns because someone gets shot. And you don't ban cars because someone gets run over. Innovation is essential for forward progress. And, in the case of finance, an enabler of better asset and risk management.

Financial innovation is the baby. Don't throw him out with the bath water of poor oversight and limited transparency.

"Buy America" = Protectionism

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:43:00 GMT

If you are looking for one subject that will tilt an already precarious world economy toward a very bleak future, it is the "Buy America" provision of the stimulus bill currently under negotiation. For nothing in the stimulus bill – not the ill-advised earmark pork of the power starved liberal Democrats, not certain suspect components of the business tax cuts favored by Republicans, not the not-shovel-ready infrastructure spending – is more threatening to the global economy than the “Buy America” provision.

But don’t just take my word for it. Consider the warning from the EU* today. Or British Prime Minister Brown when he“warned gravely against "deglobalisation" and denounced trade and financial protectionism.”*

* What signal does “Buy America” send?
* How are other countries faced with economically-derived internal strife likely to respond?
* What are other countries that provide capital to the US likely to do?

While not exactly Smoot-Hawley, it is a big step toward closing the door on the prosperity that trade and globalization facilitates. Moreover, it generates more issues and problems precisely at a time when cooperation and communication matter most. And, in the process, how Mr. Obama handles this issue will speak volumes as to his governing style.

Investment Strategy Implications

At my first five Market Forecast events conducted thus far this year and on these pages, I have raised the larger economic question, “What will be the economic philosophy that follows the death of laissez-faire, American-style cowboy capitalism?” Heaven help us if the answer includes protectionistic measures like “Buy America.”

*FT.com

*To learn about "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter and other subscriber benefits, click here.