Monthly Archives: April 2019

Nasdaq 100: April 2019

Below are the Nasdaq 100 Watch List stocks for April 2019.

Continue reading

Gilead Sciences 10-Year Targets

Below are the valuation targets for Gilead Sciences (GILD) for the next 10 years. Continue reading

Interest Rate Monitor: April 2019

Below are the downside targets for the 3-month Treasury from the beginning of the Fed’s interest rate increasing campaign. Continue reading

U.S. Dividend Watch List: April 19, 2019

Prior Year Performance Review

In our ongoing review of the NLO Dividend Watch List, we have taken the top five stocks on our list from April 20, 2018 and have checked the performance one year later. The top five companies on that list can be seen in the table below.

Symbol Name 2015 Price 2016 Price % change
PG Procter & Gamble 73.80 106.05 43.7%
ABM ABM Industries 31.75 37.37 17.7%
CL Colgate-Palmolive 67.52 69.35 2.7%
PEP PepsiCo 102.48 127.09 24.0%
HAS Hasbro Inc 82.81 88.78 7.2%
      Average 19.1%
         
DJI Dow Jones Industrial 24,462.94 26,559.54 8.6%
SPX S&P 500 2,670.14 2,905.03 8.8%

The top five companies gained +19.10% outperforming the S&P 500 gain of +8.80% by a wide margin. The largest gain of +43.70% came from Procter & Gamble (PG). One year ago, Procter was trading at 3.70% dividend yield which happens to be in the undervalue range of our 10 year target. Since then the share price has done nothing but rise.

Interestingly, the worst performing company was Colgate-Palmolive (CL) which gained +2.70% and yet these two companies are operating in the same sector. But a closer examination of Colgate one year ago revealed that it was trading closer to its fair value and wasn't undervalued. Of the two companies within the same sector, the one that is trading at discount to historical yield, with a better risk-reward proposition, would be the one to purchase.

U.S. Dividend Watch List: April 19, 2019

Below are 27 companies that are on our watch list this week. Continue reading

Is Qualcomm Finally Untethered?

On April 16, 2019, Qualcomm (QCOM) and Apple (AAPL) agreed to settle their ongoing disputes.  The outcome was significant for Qualcomm.

As Charles H. Dow, co-founder of the Wall Street Journal has said:

“The one sure thing in speculation is that values determine prices in the long run. Manipulation is effective temporarily, but the investor establishes price in the end.  The object of all speculation is to foresee coming changes in values. Whoever knows that the value of a stock has run ahead of price and is likely to be sustained can buy that stock with confidence that as its value is recognized by investors, the price will rise (Dow, Charles H. Review and Outlook.  Wall Street Journal. February 25, 1902.)."

For many years, the market price of QCOM appeared to be reflecting the neglect of speculators.  In the meantime, investors slowly and selectively accumulated shares of QCOM in anticipation of the high risk proposition that QCOM would prevail against AAPL.

As seen in our chart below, QCOM has found its share price at the undervalued level several times since 2016.  The September 13, 2018 announcement of the accelerated share buyback seems as though it was at an elevated prices.  However, as our updated 10-Year price target indicates, the prospects for QCOM are far in excess of current levels.

image

In many respects, the price of Qualcomm has been at the mercy of Apple and their ongoing lawsuits.  However, Charles H. Dow has the following to say of such conditions:

“The manipulator is all-powerful for a time. He can mark prices up or down. He can mislead investors inducing them to buy when he wishes to sell, and to sell, when he wishes to buy; but manipulation in a stock cannot be permanent, and, in the end, the investor learns the approximate truth. His decision to keep his stock or to sell it then makes a price independent of speculation and, in a large sense, indicative of true value (Dow, Charles H. Review and Outlook.  Wall Street Journal. October 18, 1901.).”

We believe that Apple has played into the hands of value investors and we’re thankful for it.  Now the test becomes whether Qualcomm will realize the overvalued targets that we have set for the stock, as seen here.

Casey’s General Stores 10-Year Targets

Below are the valuation targets for Casey’s General Stores (CASY) for the next 10 years. Continue reading

Chart of the Day

The Barron’s Averages (Industrials and Railroads) from 1906 to 1932.

image

The amazing rise from the 1907 low to the 1929 peak was followed by the staggering decline of 1931 and 1932.

Year Over Year: TJX Companies

Below is a chart of The TJX Companies (TJX) from 1988 to 2019 reflecting the year-over-year percentage change.

image

In the dashed box from 2014 to 2019, we examine the price performance of TJX after the stock price first declines to zero on a year-over-year basis from the +112.27% peak set on November 19, 2009.  We’ve highlighted the –16.20% level after the November 19, 2009 date as a marker for the following chart. 

Below are the indications of the period when TJX  first achieves zero year-over-year percentage change from 2014 to 2019 after the peak of November 19, 2009 at +112.27%.

  • July 17, 2014
  • November 14, 2014
  • January 8, 2016
  • October 21, 2016
  • April 3, 2017

image

Summary and Conclusion

For the five dates selected, the performance for TJX, when averaged out, has exceeded that of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite. In three of the five scenarios, TJX exceeded the returns of the Dow and Nasdaq Composite.

image

We did not average the 1988-2019 negative year-over-year data at the lows because it is clearly an inconsistent methodology.  Notice that if we had averaged the lows, we would have come up with an average of approximately –22% declines.  This would have meant missing the opportunities in the 2014 to 2017 period.

Data Points and Charts

In the period from July 17, 2014 to April 8, 2019, TJX gained +108.08%.

image

When compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite Index in the period from July 21, 2014 to April 1, 2019, TJX exceeds both indexes by a comfortable margin.

image

In the period from November 14, 2014 to April 8, 2019, TJX gained +95.71%.

image

When compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite Index in the period from November 17, 2014 to April 1, 2019, TJX beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average and  matched the performance of the high tech heavy Nasdaq Composite.

image

In the period from January 8, 2016 to April 8, 2019, TJX gained +62.11%.

image

When compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite Index in the period from January 11, 2016 to April 1, 2019, TJX lagged the two indexes.

image

In the period from October 21, 2016 to April 8, 2019, TJX gained +47.86%.

image

When compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite Index in the period from October 24, 2016 to April 1, 2019, TJX beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average while lagged slightly behind the Nasdaq Composite.

image

In the period from April 3, 2017 to April 8, 2019, TJX gained +38.72%.

image

When compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite Index in the period from April 10, 2017 to April 1, 2019, TJX beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite.

image

*All data we have run is expected to have errors which would result in adjustments either higher or lower.  However, our goal it to generate a unique perspective on easy to replicate processes. Let us know your thoughts and point out our errors.

Chart of the Day

Below is a chart of the Discount Rate from 1928 to 1943.  The point of this chart is to show that the restrictive rate policy from 1928 to 1929 saw the stock market and economy increase significantly.  Meanwhile, the easy money policy period from 1929 to 1943 were the most devastating for the U.S. economy and stock market.

image

This is an ironic twist on the idea that if the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates then that should explain why the U.S. economy improved from 2009 to 2019.  Interest rate policy and the Fed’s role is not the reason the economy turns around.  This explains why Japan has not recovered from the 1990 bust as outlined in our article “The ‘Even Greater’ Depression of 1990 to 2019.”

Markel Corp. 10-Year Targets

Below are the valuation targets for Markel Corp. (MKL) for the next 10 years. Continue reading

Systemic Risk: It Was Nice Knowing You

While enjoying an episode of EconTalk, we came across the following commentary:

Russ Roberts (host): And, in the area of systemic risk, which is a term that's been used a lot recently related to the financial sector, the Crisis of 2008, the issue of Too Big to Fail--how are we doing on measuring systemic risk and quantifying it?

Lars Peter Hansen (guest): Yeah. I think there we are at the very primitive stages. I'm certainly happy--that be an example where our knowledge probably is still quite meager. The term 'systemic risk' really was not on people's radar screen prior to the financial crisis. And it only became a topic of conversation among academics and policy makers prominently, after the financial crisis. Now, systemic risk, it's had a little bit of a danger of being a buzzword.

The response by the guest Lars Peter Hansen struck us as odd.  The “financial crisis” that Hansen was referring to was from approximately 2007 t0 2009.  There are some who believe that the “crisis” still isn’t over because the government bailouts only masked the hemorrhage that will ultimately reveal itself down the road.

The challenge we have with Hansen’s statement is when he said that the term “systemic risk” was not on anyone’s radar prior to the “financial crisis.”  Looking at the New York Times an Google Trends, it seems to indicate that there were some references to the specific term “systemic risk” as early as 1988, in the case of the New York Times.

image

Likewise, the data from Google Trends shows a sizable initial 2004 level (233) of references to the term “systemic risk” relative to the peak in 2009 (600).  The New York Times references jumped significantly from 3 in 2004 to 82 by the 2009 peak.  Somebody was out there concerned with the concept of “systemic risk” and they were either writing or searching on the topic.

Because Google Trends “data” begins in 2004, we have to discount that the data is skewed.  However, the peak and subsequent decline in both sources suggests that, over time, the references to the term will generally mirror each other.

So far, we have over simplified the concept of whether there was awareness of the concept of “systemic risk” as it relates to the economy and more specifically the housing environment which brought about other important discussions of concepts like “too-big-to-fail” or “too-small-to-save.”  Now we will be more specific about the idea of systemic risk through a government source (OFHEO) that had the term “systemic risk” in the title of a published paper on housing.

On the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) website (formerly Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight), there is a research paper titled “Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO” which was published on February 4, 2003 (PDF here).  It is worth noting that as with all business or organization name changes, it was done in an effort to distance or disassociate the organization from previous activities.

This research paper, “Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO”, specifically commissioned in direct response to the Long-Term Capital Management debacle (PDF here), attempted to outline and identify the various stages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed systemic risk to the financial system.  The goal was to anticipate and respond when and if the potential risks materialized.

What was the response to the February 4, 2003 OFHEO report?  On February 5, 2003, the president of the United States attempted to fire the head of OFHEO, Armando Falcon, and replace him with the head of a derivatives trading firm and former managing director of J.P. Morgan, Mark C. Brickell.  The firing did not take place but Falcon was ultimately pushed aside in favor of James Lockhart.  Lockhart “…lifted the safety restraints imposed by Mr. Falcon and repeatedly assured investors the companies [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] were adequately capitalized.”  We hazard to say that the rest is history, but it seems this is literally what will happen. 

First, the term “systemic risk” has had multiple permutations and a different arrangement of words that cloak modern academics and policymakers in a cloud of mystery when it comes to understanding the basic history of an ongoing problem.  As we said in our December 30, 2018 “New York Times Recession/Depression Index”:

“In our modern era, the terms ‘panic’ and ‘depression’ are no longer an acceptable part of the general lexicon to denote a decline in economic activity.  However, in the late 18th and early 19th century, they told it like it was.   in the mid- to late 20th century, the word ‘recession’ replaced the word panic or depression.”

The tendency has been for the modern world to shift the nature and use of language.  However, this shift leaves important data on the cutting room floor, potentially to never be seen again.

Second, the initial reaction to the report issued by Armando Falcon and proposing to install the head of a derivative trading firm as the replacement says all that we needed to know about how policymakers respond to the slightest mention of a solution before there is a problem.  There is little incentive to openly think about and discuss a problem when the consequences mean you cannot be in the right role at the right time to explore the risks and remedies.  The report issued by Falcon could now be view as a “how to manual” rather than a “how not to manual.”

Finally, in looking at the “data” on the word “systemic risk,” we find that the risk of it become a “buzzword” is only relative to the times and will morph and fade with all other references to the same concept with a new permutation as we have noted with the use of the word “recession” replacing the word “panic” or “depression.”

sources:

  • Roberts, Russ. EconTalk. Hansen on Risk, Ambiguity, and Measurement. June 30, 2014. link. accessed April 8, 2019.
  • Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO. Federal Housing Finance Agency. February 4, 2003. link. accessed February 2003.
  • Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and Stephen Labaton. “White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire: The Reckoning”. New York Times. December 21, 2008. page 1. accessed April 9, 2019.
  • New York Times. “Black Chief to Oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”. February 5, 2003. page C4. accessed April 9, 2019.
  • Google Trends.  trends.google.com. “systemic risk” (United States). link. accessed April 9, 2019.

  • Proquest. New York Times Historical Database 1851-2015. “systemic risk”. accessed April 9, 2019.

  • New York Times Recession/Depression Index. December 30, 2018. New Low Observer. link.

Boeing Co. 10-Year Targets

Below are the valuation targets for Boeing Company (BA) for the next 10 years. Continue reading

U.S. Dividend Watch List: April 5, 2019

Top Five Watch List Performance Review

In our ongoing review of the NLO Dividend Watch List, we have taken the top five stocks on our list from April 6, 2018 and have checked the performance one year later. The top five companies on that list can be seen in the table below.

Symbol Name 2015 Price 2016 Price % change
D Dominion Energy, Inc. 66.22 77.47 17.0%
ARLP Alliance Resource Partners, L.P 16.85 19.01 12.8%
JCI Johnson Controls Inc 33.64 36.19 7.6%
ABM ABM Industries 32.63 37.12 13.8%
BEN Franklin Resources 33.22 34.88 5.0%
      Average 11.2%
         
DJI Dow Jones Industrial 23,932.76 26,424.99 10.4%
SPX S&P 500 2,604.47 2,892.74 11.1%

The average gain of the top five companies were in-line with the S&P 500 at 11%. To our surprise, some of the best performers are energy related companies, Dominion Energy (D) and Alliance Resource Partners (ARLP). In addition to the price gain in Alliance Resource Partners of 12.8%, one would have received more than 10% return from dividend payment. To invest in any company with double digit dividend yield is extremely risky, in our view.

U.S Dividend Watch List: April 5, 2019

The market appears to be retesting the all-time high with a gain of 1.5% for the week. Even if the S&P 500 breaks its all-time high, we continue to look to Dow Theory bull market indications. As we speak, the Dow Jones Transport Average is 7% off from the high. Continue reading

American National Insurance 10-Year Targets

Below are the valuation targets for American National Insurance Co. (ANAT) for the next 10 years. Continue reading

ASML Holdings 10-Year Targets

Below are the valuation targets for ASML Holdings N.V. (ASML) for the next 10 years. Continue reading