Cause and Effect Happy 2014

S&P Jan 2 2014

corp profits 1 jan 2014corp profits 2 as per jan 2014

There are three charts here, all from the St.Louis Fed. Reserve Bank, the self appointed statistician of the 12 banks. Top is the S&P, beneath that corporate profits in absolute terms and to the right of that the same thing in proportion to GDP (Gross Domestic Product), both measured on an after-tax basis..

It was not that long ago that a very well regarded economist figured out that there was an almost perfect correlation between, I believe, whooping cranes flying over the Rhine river and Mercedes-Benzes sold in Stuttgart. Here we have something similar but with a much higher degree of plausibility.  The economic value of a stock, or anything for that matter, is in its simplest terms the discounted value of all future profits/earnings that accrue to the owner (as opposed to some level of government through taxation). As a result of reductions in corporate taxes, accelerated  depreciation, offshoring income, globalization and a myriad of loopholes – apparently it is now possible, in North Dakota, to create a trust that will , perpetually, postpone the recognition of income provided it is not taken out , no more 21 years max, no more succession duties and all those other nasty things; a wealthy dynasty builders dream come true – corporate after tax profits have gone through the roof ( proportionately 6x as much as in the golden days of the sixties!). At the same time interest rates have gone down and stayed low substantially increasing the present value of any income stream. By one estimate 98% of the beneficial impact of the various QEs that we have had has accrued to the top 1% of the population. But we are always told about the dire consequences if the Fed. had not stepped in. This “shock and awe” approach has the enormous advantage that no proof is ever required.  With regard to the correlation, it is clear that , numerically, both the S&P and the corporate profits start at about zero and end at 1800. Moreover each wiggle in one chart has a corresponding wiggle in the other, all though, in one instance, the amplitude is unequal. The hypothesis then is that, for the stock market to go higher, corporate profits will have to increase roughly by $1000 bln. for every 1000 S&P points. We put the probability of that happening consistently over the next few years at near zero because;

1. Interest rates cannot go negative so ultimately up is the only path left.

2.Equality of incomes is so lopsided that in some circles there is recognition that this is a major problem.

3. With a trillion $$ deficit it is hard to see how the US could cut taxes further.

4. There is no growth anywhere in the world worth mentioning.

5. Keynes remarked that in the long run we are all dead. Perhaps he had his own theories that now have a cult like following in mind when he made that observation.

6. Global warming is not accepted by the flat-earth majority, but increasingly the effects are starting to show up everywhere. The costs will no doubt be enormous.

7. Entitlement programmes, most barely 60 years old and a lot less in their present form, are already bankrupting major parts of both the government and private sectors.

The list goes on. Happy 2014.

MA, Mastercard

ma dec 25 2013 1ma dec 25 2013 2

The standard interest charged on these cards is somewhere between 19 and 22 percent, depending on the particulars and other byzantine things like “rewards” etc.etc. With the cost of funds for these card companies dropping close to zero they make out like bandits, especially when the actual credit risk is transferred back to the merchant or the bank that sponsors  the card. The question here is simple when is this stock in a bubble. The answer is fairly simple in most cases, when the stock goes parabolic, that is vertical on a normal chart. You can see this starting to happen in the arithmetic chart on the left, not quite there yet but pretty close. The semi-log chart will show as a perfectly straight line which, theoretically, could continue forever. Another year like this and the stock will be at $1300. We are about to re-enter the old channel  and this is often as good as it gets. A sell in our opinion, even a short if properly done.

RY update #50

ry dec 25 2013

So how does the Royal Bank look by comparison to the Swiss index? It has moved up from $5 to $72 in about 24 years (not including a dividend of 3 to 5 % along the way!) for a total gain of $67. To make the no-slide-rule-math simple we will call that $64, which then conveniently equals 2x2x2x2x2x2 which means that the stock must have doubled every 4 years (24/6=4). Using the rule of 72 that equates to a return of 72/4=18% over the entire period, compounded.

During this entire period RY benefitted from the reverse take-over of the far better managed Dominion Securities (1987?), the entry into the insurance business and a substantial expansion of the wealth management business. Interestingly it is exactly that which caused the downfall of one or two of the Swiss competitors. From here on it will mostly be less, or less profitable,  mortgage business, Basel 3, the Volcker rule and someday, perhaps, a less ironclad oligopoly as Canada attempts to grow up with the rest of the world. All that is left is Janet Yellen.

We just cannot see this continuing much longer. By clicking on the charts you can enlarge them and move them around to make the comparison with the Swiss index more expressive.

Is the market overvalued?

2014 in 2014 is the latest prediction and we will be hearing much higher levels soon. However, not everyone agrees. A good example,short and sweet and very much to the point can be found at  http://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/Stock-Nightmare.pdf  Properly titled “Nightmare on Wall Street” and written by one Ed Easterling, this is well worth reading.

We will try to make the same point using EW (and other technical approaches) on the SMI, the Swiss Market Index. The choice is random but it seems to work very well using the famous “gnomes of Zurich” operating from a country that nobody has ever accused of being cheap. The index consists of the creme de la creme of bluechip stocks, Nestle being the most prominent. Here is the chart;

smi dec 25 2013 2

Like most other indices the SMI has had 3 tops over the past 15 years or so. In this particular case we will chose the mid top as the top. The simple reason is that it looks good and saves me the trouble of having to find an excuse why the highest point might not actually be THE top. From ‘91 to ‘98 this index, like so many others, grows 8-fold prompting the Maestro to utter the now famous “irrational exuberance”, despite later claims that detecting a bubble in real time was impossible. Today, we are at these very same levels, now roughly 21+ years later. To get from 1000 to 8000 in twenty-one years the index has to double every 7 years (that is 3 times or 2x2x2=8).  The rule of 72 tells you that this can be achieved only by 72/7= 10% per annum, compounded. This is rough math as I have lost my slide rule. So despite not doing anything for the better part of 14 years this index has nevertheless achieved a respectable return of 10% for 21+ years. So where is this going in the future? Down.   In EW terms we have completed a B-wave (as in so many other indices, see CAC , DAX, etc.etc.) so C is next going towards 3000 where the 4th wave of previous degree resides.  Also, it is a well known fact in EW that after an extended wave, the retracement typically goes to the top of wave one of that extension, here just a little above 3000 as well.If you adhere to the Head & Shoulder structure 3000 is your target as well. Regression to the mean would point to even lower levels if you stop to consider that it took 100 years to get to 1000 to begin with.

For the record, we have not changed the outlook from a year ago, just tweaked it to clean out a few minor imperfections, see chart below from precisely a year ago. Also another 1000 points or so is not entirely impossible but that is where the above article comes in. In the Head & Shoulder structure things would be more symmetric if one assume that wave 3 coincides with the LS. This can easily be achieved if the entire a – b – c wave 4 is deleted and the diagonal changed to a simple zig-zag a –b – c down. In this scenario wave 3 of 3 would be the extended wave up and the target would remain unchanged at 3000, or possible even lower, at about 2000:

smi dec 20 2012