Amazon’s Lesson

In 1993, Warren Buffett used $433 million in Berkshire Hathaway stock to purchase Dexter Shoe. In his 2007 letter to shareholders, Buffett explained that this poor decision was magnified because he used the company stock to make the purchase. Warren wrote, “To date, Dexter is the worst deal that I’ve made. But I’ll make more mistakes in the future — you can bet on that.”

It’s easy to reflect on all the “what if” investments that each of us have missed. Economist Larry Summers summed it up best with this quote, “Most investors want to do today what they should have done yesterday.”

It is always clear to look back at the “misses”. This week marks the 20th Anniversary of Amazon going public. A $1,000 investment on the day of May 15th 1997 would be worth around $638,000 today. A few weeks ago, Buffett was asked on CNBC why he didn’t buy Amazon shares, and his answer was simple, “Stupidity”.  Amazon’s amazing success has disrupted the business model of the entire retail industry. First, it was the bookstores, and then they bankrupted countless other competitors. This earnings season especially the market has been punishing many retail companies that are showing signs of slowing revenue. It is not uncommon to see companies lose over 15% of their value overnight.

Numerous investment lessons can be learned from studying Amazon’s phenomenal success. There is one in particular that I believe is critical to investment success.

A company that continuously grows revenue is much more valuable than a company that is generating profits but has no revenue growth. There are many retail companies that pay above average dividends; however, these stocks have been decimated because of lost revenues to Amazon. On the contrary, Amazon pays no dividend and has never shown any real profits. They reinvest all of their profits back into the business to generate even higher revenues.

There are many investments that appeared cheap on valuation, have substantial cash flows, strong balance sheets, and great dividends. In spite of these justifications to purchase these stocks, I would consider them value traps. With no revenue growth, falling profits will not be far behind. I consider avoiding these types of investments much more important than making decisions based on the daily political games being played out in Washington. I remain much more focused on which investments offer the best future revenue growth.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

Active vs. Passive Management

According to FactSet, the start of 2017 has been the best year for earnings growth rate since the end of 2011.  To date, the number of companies beating their sales and earnings estimates is above the 5-year average. As long as earnings growth rates remain in double-digits, markets should continue to climb.

The major trend emerging this year is that money is flowing into overseas markets. With political uncertainty playing out in Washington, investors are reallocating into Europe and Emerging markets. This week, Jeffrey Gundlach, who is Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of DoubleLine Capital, took this trade one step further. He recommended to short the U.S. stock market and buy Emerging Markets. This is called a pair trade. As long as Emerging Markets outperform the U.S stock market, he will make money. He is not extremely bearish on the U.S markets. Rather, he favors Emerging Markets much more than the S&P 500.

Last year, Gundlach surprised markets when he predicted that Donald Trump would win the U.S. presidency. He was also correct with in is prediction when he called the bottom in interest rates. This new forecast is that too many investors are piling into passively managed funds. He believes that these investors are blindly making investments that they don’t fully understand. This also has been a very concerning trend for me.

There has been a backlash against active managers over the past 12 months. Ned Davis, who founded an investment research group that is now one of the largest independent institutional investment research providers in the market, recently wrote, “Don’t worry about fundamentals, or values; don’t worry about market timing; just buy the market and hold! Even if there is a small correction, the market has always come back! Sounds ‘bubbly’ to me.”

I strongly believe in both an active and passive approach to selecting investments for my clients. There are some investments where an active manager can add value and are worth paying a higher expense. For instance, I would never invest in an High Yield exchange-traded fund. I am very comfortable paying for an analyst to review the credit risk of the company and that company’s ability to pay. It is important to understand bond covenants and actual recovery rates if that company does get into financial difficulty. If you invest in the High Yield ETF, you are investing in a basket of companies that have the most debt and you have no idea if management has the willingness or even the ability to pay you. While this is an extreme example, it can be applied to other sectors of the market.

I believe that this trend towards passive investing will continue and even accelerate in the next few years. There was a technology bubble, a housing bubble, and at some point we are going to have to navigate through the coming passive ETF bubble.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

Why markets are trading at such high valuations

Jeremy Grantham, who is the co-founder and chief investment strategist of (GMO), a Boston-based asset management firm, released his quarterly letter. Jeremy built his reputation on predicting major market bubbles.  He called the housing bubble and warned about technology valuations in 1999.

I thought this recent quarterly letter was well written. He uses historical facts to make a case that while markets are overvalued, they are not in a bubble. According to GMO, the average P/E ratio over the last 20 years is 23.36. Over a 20 year period prior to 1997, the P/E ratio averaged around 14. He provides a few very good explanations as to why markets are trading at such high valuations.

U.S. profits are much higher than they were 20 years ago. The average U.S. profit margin is now 7% and 20 years ago it was 5%. He presents four arguments why profit margins should remain elevated.

Globalization –  “Increased globalization has no doubt increased the value of brands, and the U.S. has much more than its fair share of both the old established brands such as Coca-Cola and the J&J variety as well as the new ones like Apple, Amazon, and Facebook.”

Increasing corporate power – “Steadily increasing corporate power over the last 40 years has been, I think it’s fair to say, the defining feature of the US government and politics in general.”

Monopoly power – “The general pattern described so far is entirely compatible with increased monopoly power for US corporations. Put it this way, if they had materially more monopoly power, we would expect to see exactly what we do see: higher profit margins; increased reluctance to expand capacity; slight reductions in GDP growth and productivity; pressure on wages, unions, and labor negotiations.”

Low interest rates – “The single largest input to higher margins, though, is likely to be the existence of much lower real interest rates since 1997 combined with higher leverage. Pre-1997 real rates averaged 200 bps higher than now, and leverage was 25% lower.”

Going forward, he believes that the biggest risk to markets is rising interest rates. However, interest rates are unlikely to move that much higher given that much of the world is grounded below 0%.

This investment environment has resulted in many low risk investors buying more stocks. Back on August 5th, I wrote how the game rules were changing. The old rule of thumb of investing for retirement savers was to invest less in equities as they aged. This rule was very successful before we entered this period of globalization, increased corporate power, monopoly power, and low interest rates. As Jeremy wrote in his quarterly letter, “a regular bear market of 15% to 20% can always occur for any one of many reasons”, but this current trend could go on longer than people expect.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

The Economy vs. Stocks

There have been louder warnings by market pundits of a possible global financial crisis. Up to this point, these doomdayers have had a terrible record on predicting when the next market calamity will unfold. Each market dip has been short-lived with markets eventually making a speedy recovery. This week markets cheered the news that the pollsters finally got it right in the French election. The populist backlash in Europe has subsided for the moment.

With this hurdle cleared, the market turned its attention on whether President Trump can pass sweeping tax reform. The major provision in this plan is that the U.S. economy will need to grow by 3-4% or the tax cuts will add to the deficit. Given that the Q1 2017 GDP increased only at a 0.7% annual rate, higher economic growth is likely to be short-lived.

Over the last year, the S&P 500 index is up 17.78%, while GDP growth has stalled around 2.5%. This divergence can only be explained one way. Stock valuations have climbed in value much faster than earnings. Artificially low interest rates have helped to boost equity returns. Moreover, low rates have caused a buying frenzy in the housing market and bidding wars are common, especially at the lower price points. I believe that housing supply will remain limited.

The number of licensed realtors hit a nine-year high in 2016. Just this week, I received five mailings from real estate agents who were prospecting for new business. House prices in many of the major U.S. cities are now higher than they were before the Great Recession.  Along with the rise in housing, the Nasdaq reached a record level to 6,032. In March 2000, the Nasdaq passed the 5,000 mark before losing 80% of its value after the bubble burst. As Mark Twain wrote, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. Housing and the Nasdaq are once again beginning to show signs of excess speculation.

I believe that the market is in the late stage of the economic cycle. This part of the cycle can be very lucrative and can go on longer than investors realize. The pro-business environment should continue, even though recent government statistics have shown little GDP growth.  The biggest risk remains that the economy might overheat.  The investment theme that I have written about often is also starting to look a bit stretched.

It’s that Innovative companies will drive growth regardless of government policies or government statistics. There are many large companies that have cornered parts of the market that I would now view as monopolist. A few of these companies reported earnings this week and these results exceeded expectations.

Most of the management teams on these conference calls have sounded up-beat. All in all, the stock market might be ahead of itself, but higher expected earnings growth is not that far behind.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

Why the Dow Jones is a flawed index

Ever since the U.S. presidential election there has been a large divergence in returns between the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). Year-to-date, the DJIA is up 4.60% and the S&P 500 is up 5.41%. The financial media and nightly news have always placed more of an emphasis on reporting the daily moves of the DJIA. As large milestones such as Dow 20,000 are crossed, there is always a discussion around key market levels. This is meaningless information for long-term investors.

In my 15 year career working at large financial institutions, I never had one client track their return against the DJIA index. The reason is that large institutions understand that the construction of this index is flawed. The DJIA is a price-weighted average of 30 large-cap U.S. companies. These companies tend to be the oldest and most popular businesses and represent a very good barometer of the overall health of the economy. The flaw of the DJIA index is that the large priced stocks have a much larger influence on the return.

For example, Goldman Sachs, is one of the highest-priced stocks, trading around $217. This one company accounts for around 9% of the total index. On the flip side, General Electric, is one of the lowest priced stocks, trading at around $30. The weighing of GE is equal to approximately only 1% for the DJIA. A move in Goldman Sachs has 9X the influence on the change of the price compared to General Electric.

This week a few of the larger priced DJIA stocks missed earnings – IBM, JNJ, Travelers, and Goldman Sachs saw a significant drop in price. The combined total drop in price was around $22 for these companies.  This change in price is equivalent to GE nearly going out of business this week!

A better proxy for market returns is the Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P 500). This index is a market value-weighted index of 500 stocks. The components of these companies are by the actual size of the company in the market. The S&P 500 also attempts to mirror the diversity of the largest companies. As companies grow is size, they will become a larger component of the S&P 500 index. 

The high returns over the last few years of the S&P 500 index has helped to propel the popularity of investing in the exchange-traded S&P 500 index (SPY). Most active mutual fund managers have not kept pace with returns against this index. However, there are more active managers that have done a better job at managing risk to this benchmark. It’s the risk-adjusted return that should matter most to investors. The risk of the S&P 500 is largely misunderstood by the public. There is now a much higher weighting of technology companies in the S&P 500. In 2009, technology companies only represented a 15% weighting in the index compared to approximately 21% in 2017.

This larger weighting is a major reason why I believe that the volatility for the S&P 500 will be higher in the future. Over the next month, I expect market moves to increase as major technology companies such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Google report earnings. Positive earnings reports and future revenue guidance from these companies is much more important than the political games being played out in Washington. 

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.


I recently finished a book titled Zero to One, which was written by Peter Thiel. Peter is an entrepreneur and investor, who started PayPal in 1998. After he took the company public, he made the first outside investment in Facebook, and since that time has been an investor in hundreds of startups. The book stems from a course on startups that he taught at Stanford in 2012.

He wrote that successful people find value in unexpected places and they do this by thinking about business first from principles instead of formulas. The same could be said of all successful investors. Making investments based on formulas or technical analysis does not lead to successful investment outcomes over fundamental analysis.

This week Bill Gross wrote (and underlined) in his April Investment Outlook that “equity markets are priced for too much hope, high yield bond markets for too much growth, and all asset prices elevated to artificial levels that only a model driven, historically biased investor would believe could lead to returns resembling the past six years, or the decades predating Lehman. High rates of growth, and the productivity that drives it, are likely distant memories from a bygone era.”

Bill also wrote that “Northwestern’s Robert Gordon has long argued that lower productivity may now be a function of having picked all of the “low hanging fruit” such as electrification and other gains from 20th century technology.”

Bill has one of the greatest bond investment track-records, but I know that Peter would not agree with much of this statement. Peter wrote in his book that new technology tends to come from new ventures – startups. These startups build a different plan for the future.  They are both imagining and creating the new technologies, while questioning received ideas and rethinking business from scratch. Peter believes in the power of planning and he writes that long-term planning is often undervalued by our indefinite short-term world. In July 2006, Yahoo! offered to buy Facebook for $1 billion. Mark Zuckerberg scoffed at the idea. The rest is history.

I believe that this way of thinking can be applied to many of the companies that have been the big winners in our economy. Eight of the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 companies are continuously innovating. Of these top companies – Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, J&J, and Facebook – all share the similar characteristic of being a monopolistic power. Peter defines a “monopoly” as a kind of company that’s so good at what it does, that no other firm can offer a close substitute. He believes that the reality is that there is an enormous difference between perfect competition and a monopoly. Either a business has it, or it doesn’t.

The cash flows for these monopolies require much less capital investment and more human capital. Outsized profits come from these monopolies, in turn, leads to higher stock appreciation. To paraphrase Peter, creative monopolies give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance; they are powerful engines for making it better. A company such as Apple only becomes a monopoly when people will pay even more money for a product. A search engine such as Google’s cannot be replicated. Hasbro is one of the most popular companies in our local area and they have been a very creative monopoly. I have a few clients who work there and you would be surprised that none of them think of their company as a toy company, rather it’s a technology company that specializes in entertainment.

Geopolitics and what happens in government is important, but not nearly as much as investing long-term in companies that are developing creative monopolies. There is a premium to own many of these types of businesses and this will likely remain the case even through these volatile markets.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

Making sense of Tesla’s valuation

I wrote back on August 6th 2016, “Game Rules are Changing”, my thoughts on market predictions and how they could be best summed up in a Warren Buffett quote,

“A prediction about the direction of the stock market tells you nothing about where stocks are headed, but a whole lot about the person doing the predicting.”

Last summer, many investment guru’s recommended that investors should “sell everything”. Goldman Sachs even sounded the alarm on equities. Since that time, the S&P 500 is up around 7% and Financial ETF (XLF), which I highlighted in that post, is up around 20%.

Eventually, all of these warnings will come true. So far many of the most popular prognosticators are well off the mark on their timing to sell. As the markets have risen, the louder these voices have become. If Buffett can’t time the top, I’m sure nobody else has a chance. There is now even a longer line of “experts” sounding the alarm on high equity valuations, out-of-control house prices, and a divided government.

These investors may not realize it, but they are using a top-down approach. Analyzing leading economic indicators, market technicals/sentiment, geo-political events, and monitoring Federal Reserve policies are very difficult to predict.  The investment results are mixed at best for this type of approach. This 20,000-foot view is often used by the financial media due to the ease of communicating this news in quick soundbites.

Leon Cooperman is a hedge fund manager that built his fortune using a bottom-up approach. On Wednesday, Leon said on CNBC that passive management isn’t how famed investors have built their fortunes. He went on to say, “All I know is if the ability to underperform exists, the ability to outperform also exists.” Fundamental stock analysts make decisions based on the next 3-5 years. These analysts have all been grouped together and branded as inferior to passive management (buying ETFs). It is unfortunate that active managers have been labeled as not worth the higher expenses.

I am going to highlight an extreme example of the difference between a top-down and bottom-up approach investor. As a policy, I never discuss individual stocks or give advice in my posts because there is too much liability. The following commentary is not a buy or a sell recommendation and at this moment I have no position in this company.

This week Tesla passed Ford in market capitalization. Tesla, delivered 25,000 cars globally last quarter, while Ford sold 617,302 vehicles. Tesla is also close to passing GM in total value. Last year, GM made a profit of almost $10 billion, and Tesla had total sales of only $7 billion. This example has many investors utterly confused.

Investors who have bet against (shorted) Tesla have taken a top-down view. They have misjudged as a result of taking a snapshot of the company from this point in time. Using a bottom-up approach, a fundamental investor has projected cash flows 3-5 years into the future. The Tesla story is feasible, if they can deliver on selling 400,000-500,000 Model 3 vehicles.

I use a bottom-up approach. I actively manage my clients’ portfolios with an eye on the next 3 years. At this point in time, from the top-down, the market does seem as though there is a high probability for a correction. However, using a bottom-up approach, the profit picture still looks positive for many companies regardless of what the Fed announces or what happens in Washington. I just hope that that these top-down investors continue to be off on their timing.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

1Q 2017 Review and 2Q 2017 Outlook

1Q 2017 Review

In my first post of the year, I highlighted Artificial Intelligence (AI) as my top investment opportunity for 2017. The companies that I suggested in that post who I believed had the first mover advantage were Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Nvidia, Tesla, and Facebook. In a subsequent post, I wrote about “The Next Big Idea”, which was self-driving vehicles. Intel made one of biggest mergers of the quarter when they acquired Mobileye at a 30% premium. Mobileye (MBLY) is an Israel-based assisted-driving systems supplier.

I believe that the first trillion-dollar company will be the one that innovates in AI. Technology companies were the market leaders in the first quarter and innovative companies led the way. Money rotated out of small cap stocks due to valuation concerns and into large cap companies. My decision to focus in this area has continued to work well. The person who had a magnificent quarter was Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos. He passed Warren Buffett to become the second richest person in the world. His company is now almost twice the size of Wal-Mart!  The lesson here is that the company that captures future earnings is more valuable than the one no longer growing current earnings.

This quarter the S&P 500 gained 5.92% and the Vanguard Total Bond Index finished up only 0.77%. Economic data couldn’t look any better, which is concerning for that very same reason. Investors ignored the sideshow in Washington and focused more on strong economic data. The hot housing market and low unemployment rate has resulted in consumer confidence reaching a 17-year high.

2Q 2017 Outlook

For my friends and family that know me well, know that I don’t like to follow crowds. I’m noticing some worrisome trends emerging that will eventually impact your portfolio. Delusional crowds are forming everywhere I look. Housing, in particular, is exhibiting characteristics of another bubble. Crowds have very short memories. The 2008 housing crash might as well have happened 1,000 years ago.

The crowd forming in the stock market is beginning to look worrisome. Ed Yardeni summed it up best in a blog that he wrote a few weeks ago. There seems to be more interest in seeking out low-cost funds rather than cheap stocks. He went on to write that until something happens to scare investors out of those passive funds, it could trigger either a correction or a nasty meltdown. I couldn’t agree more with his assessment.

The madness of crowds is also playing out in Washington. There have been rallies or marches for or against the president’s agenda. I believe that there isn’t a single person who isn’t frustrated with Washington regardless of their political orientation. The good news is that the uncertainty has yet to have any impact on the stock market.

My entire 2Q outlook depends on how the Trump administration navigates recent legislative adversity. If tax reform doesn’t happen or if there is possible geopolitical confrontation with North Korea, markets are going to go down fast. These types of events are impossible to predict and those that make predictions are usually wrong in the short-term. Getting the timing right is unprofitable.

I’m going to continue to focus on investing in innovative companies that are developing autonomous vehicles, social media, the cloud, and artificial intelligence. I have one eye on Washington, and the other on corporate cash flows. The right call over the past 8 years has been to invest in high quality businesses that are either generating high cash flows, paying dividends, buying back shares, and/or growing revenues. When this formula stops working, then I’ll reevaluate.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

The Streak is Over

The consecutive streak of the stock market not falling more than -1% ended on Tuesday. You have to go back all the way to 1995 for a time when the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index had not fallen for 1% in 110 consecutive days.

According to data from FactSet, during this period, the trailing 12-month P/E ratio widened from 19.8 to 21.8. The 10-year average P/E ratio is 16.5. For those of you who don’t understand the importance of the P/E ratio, here is a crash course.

The price-to-earnings ratio is the most important fundamental ratio in investing. It is also the most misunderstood. The P/E ratio represents how much an investor is willing to pay for each dollar of a company’s earnings. If a company is expected to grow earnings, the P/E ratio tends to be higher. For instance, if investors are expecting a huge tax cut, then they will pay more for a dollar of future earnings. Therefore, the forward 12-month P/E ratio is more important than the trailing 12-month P/E ratio. The current forward 12-month P/E ratio is at a lower 17.8.

If we fast forward a year, and the new trailing 12-month ratio is at 17.8, then the investors forecast will have been correct today that corporate profits would grow over 10%. In this example where P/E ratios have fallen because of high earnings, then stocks are not overvalued. If the tax cut doesn’t occur in the next few years, there is a good chance I’lll be writing about a new streak of consecutive down days of over 1%!

The inverse of the P/E ratio, or E/P ratio is called earnings yield. The earnings yield helps investors compare the earnings yield of stocks to the interest rates of bonds. The rule of thumb is you buy stocks when the earnings yield of the S&P 500 stocks is higher than the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond. When the 10-year Treasury yield is higher than the yield on the S&P 500 then the market is overvalued. This is the reason why Warren Buffett commented last month that he is not worried about market valuations, but prefaced, as long as interest rates remain low.

The biggest drawback to the P/E ratio is that corporate CEO’s and CFO’s can manipulate earnings through accounting shenanigans. However, they have a harder time manipulating cash flows. This makes analyzing cash flows far superior to the trailing 12-month P/E ratio. A skilled analyst will verify cash flows vs. earnings. If earnings quality is good then cash flows tend be more consistent over time. There are entire textbooks dedicated to explaining free cash flow (FCF) yield. Warren Buffett built his entire fortune on the mastery of this calculation.

It was no coincidence to me that the consecutive streak for no -1% moves ended this week as politicians struggled to pass a new health care reform. Investors are more focused on tax cuts. Fear is beginning to creep into that market that Republicans will not even be able to agree on reforming the tax code. Over the coming months, the breaking news out of Washington will continue to create every twist and turn in the market.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.

Are we in a stock market bubble?

This is the worst time to invest in the stock market if you prefer owning underpriced companies. According to Yale economist Robert Shiller, who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2014, the market is way overpriced. Shiller’s price-to-earnings ratio, which measures a stock’s price relative to the last 10 years of the company’s earnings, hit a level not seen since the early 2000s.

This is the still a good time to invest in the stock market if you believe that the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy will overheat the economy, which could spark inflation. I believe that the Fed was responsible for the 2000 tech bubble and the 2008 housing bubble. In both cases, the central bank was slow to recognize that poor fiscal policy would ignite speculative excess. The third time might be the charm.

This week the Federal Reserve raised short-term interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point. This increase was expected. The real shock came after the meeting when Janet Yellen was speaking to reporters and said that the central bank was willing to tolerate inflation temporarily, overshooting above its 2 percent goal and that it intended to keep its policy accommodative for “some time.” Two percent is a target, she reiterated, not a ceiling. The stock market cheered her change of heart.

Interest rates had already been on an upswing following the election of Donald Trump as president. Prior to the election, 30-year fixed mortgage rates was 3.50% and now it’s at 4.25% (Leaders Bank). U.S. Interest rates would be much higher if overseas rates were not negative. The 2-year German Bund is at -0.81%. Investors are actually willing to lose money not to take risk.

While I’m in full agreement with Schiller’s warnings, I continue to believe that stocks continue to offer the best hedge against inflation. The best way to explain my reasoning is through a few examples. Recently, a client asked whether a 2% CD maturing in 5 years was a good deal. My answer was if the Fed is willing to tolerate inflation above 2% then buying this CD could eventually result in a loss of purchasing power. Another client inquired whether a 4% fixed annuity was a wise choice. It seems like a deal today, but what happens if interest rate rise by 1-2%? The Fed is expected to raise rates by this amount over the next few years. This retiree might be better off waiting and buying corporate or municipal bonds in a few years. This would allow them to keep the principal of their investment rather than donating it to the insurance company.

Please consider your own personal circumstances and risk tolerances before taking advice through a blog. But in the cases for these clients, the answer was clear. At some point, Shiller will eventually be proven correct, but I believe it will be when interest rate and inflation rates are much higher.

Please read our disclosure statement regarding the contents of this post and our website as a whole.