Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Falling Knives

We [The Brandes Institute] examined the performance of falling knives in the U.S. stock market from 1986 through 2002. While the falling knives we identified did post a relatively high bankruptcy rate over the three-year period following their initial drop, they also outperformed the S&P 500 by wide margins. We followed up our study of U.S.-based falling knives by extending our falling knife analysis to markets outside the United States – and we concluded that non-U.S. knives also tended to outdistance their benchmarks.

Overall, we find that falling knives around the world continued to offer significant outperformance potential. Our research also yields a variety of specific conclusions:
  • Bankruptcy risk was higher than normal among U.S. falling knives, but even when bankruptcies are counted, the average U.S. knife outperformed the S&P 500 substantially
  • While falling knives in non-U.S. markets went bankrupt at a much lower rate than their U.S.-based counterparts, these non-U.S. knives posted similarly strong outperformance figures
  • The information technology sector yielded a high proportion of falling knives, and these knives generally outperformed substantially; knives in the utilities sector also tended to perform strongly
  • The positively skewed distribution of returns for both U.S. and non-U.S. falling knives suggests that stock selection could be critical to successful falling knife investment
  • Enterprise-value-to-sales ratios could help investors identify the most compelling opportunities among falling knives
[10/18/09 - new link via chucks_angels]

***

[4/28/13] Your ability to maintain focus on the long term comes from experience. You go through a couple cycles where everybody else is screaming at you not to try to catch a falling knife, and then when you do so and make some money, it does wonders for you . . . and for your ability to do it next time.

—Howard Marks, Oaktree Capital [excerpt from The Art of Value Investing]

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Market Crashes

I hope this isn't news to you: Another stock market crash is on its way. That's the bad news. The good news is that it isn't necessarily right around the corner.

At about.com, Dustin Woodard reviews our 10 worst stock market crashes.

Notice though that the crashes have always been been followed by recoveries, and the market trends upward in the long run. You sometimes have to wait a long time for a full recovery, though.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Mad About Mega Caps

[3/20/07] Megacaps are now much cheaper than their smaller brethren. The top 100 U.S. stocks by market capitalization are trading at a reasonable 14 times operating earnings, Inker notes. Companies that rank in size from 501 to 1,000 trade at a steeper 21 times operating earnings, while the ones ranked from 1,001 to 3,000 go for a whopping multiple of 28.

"That's quite high by historical standards," says Ben Inker, director of asset allocation for Boston-based money-management firm GMO. "Normally you get bribed to own small caps in the form of lower P/Es, but these stocks have been on a tear." So if earnings growth does slow, there's not much room for the inevitable earnings disappointments among small caps.

[11/16/06] For the first time in years, corporate giants like American Express, IBM and Johnson & Johnson are shaping up as great values. Not only are these mega-cap stocks topping Schwab Equity Ratings’ list of highly rated stocks, but they are also trading at lower price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios relative to small- and mid-cap stocks than they’ve done in years. And for the first time since 2002, mega caps are outperforming the rest of the market. This year through October 31, the S&P 100 Index, which is a proxy for the 100 largest U.S. stocks, rose 14.4%, vs. 12.0% for small caps and 7.4% for mid caps.

What’s behind these stocks’ recent boost? As the economy slows, large, broadly diversified companies are typically better positioned to weather drops in consumer demand than small- and mid-sized companies. That may help explain the recent relative outperformance of mega-cap stocks (see chart line). The other major factor, in the chart’s shaded areas, is the relative cheapness of mega caps. Currently, the average P/E for the S&P 100 is 18.2, versus 22.0 for mid caps and 21.8 for small caps.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Buy the best?

One widely recognized and easily digested measurement of corporate quality is the annual Fortune list of "Most Admired" companies, which could be an easy and valuable investing tool. Academic research shows that money invested in the Fortune most-admired companies would have outperformed the S&P 500 (PDF file) by a tidy margin between 1983 and 2004.

That seems to suggest it'd be in your best interests to bet on these companies yourself, except for one little detail: The "Least Admired" companies provided even better returns.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Don’t Overpay Today for Growth Tomorrow

Any list of long-term stock market winners is dominated by companies that grew earnings per share (EPS) much faster than market averages. Therefore, the key to future portfolio success must be to buy stocks with the highest earnings growth prospects, right? Wrong!

If each year from 1986 to 2006 you had purchased the 20% of stocks from the 3,200 largest market capitalization public companies with the highest five-year EPS growth forecasts, your portfolio would have lagged the average stock by about 1.5% annually, while being much more volatile.

There are two primary reasons why stocks with high EPS growth forecasts tend to underperform:

1. Stocks with high growth expectations tend to have high current valuation levels—that is, high price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios. Stocks with strong earnings potential are typically well known, and investors are usually willing to “pay up” for potential growth.

2. High expectation stocks tend to deliver actual earnings growth far short of optimistic forecasts. When such stocks report negative earnings surprises, prices tend to fall and P/Es to contract.

Lower P/E stocks have tended to provide higher historical returns for any level of expected EPS growth. Interestingly, this effect is more prominent among value stocks with low EPS growth expectations than among growth stocks with high EPS growth forecasts. In other words, high growth expectation stocks with low PEG ratios still tend to underperform.

Building a portfolio of stocks with the greatest likelihood of outperforming the market over the long run is a process of tilting the odds in your favor. While there are exceptions to every rule, history suggests that buying stocks with high EPS growth forecasts or high P/Es is fighting the odds. Here are three useful rules of thumb:

1. Avoid stocks with P/E ratios above 25 (use EPS over the last four quarters from continuing operations before extraordinary items).

2. Avoid stocks with five-year consensus EPS growth rate forecasts above 25.

3. Avoid stocks with negative current EPS and five-year consensus EPS growth forecasts above 15%.


Perhaps the most practical lesson that can be taken from our “P/E vs. Growth” matrix is to ignore consensus five-year EPS growth forecasts altogether and simply emphasize buying stocks with low P/E ratios. While a diversified portfolio of low P/E stocks will not always outperform and definitely makes a bet on value stocks, historically such portfolios have outperformed the broad stock market and been simultaneously less volatile—not a bad combination.


By Greg Forsythe, CFA
Senior Vice President, Schwab Equity Ratings®
Schwab Center for Investment Research®

Monday, March 12, 2007

How Good People Make Bad Investments

Investing isn't hard work. And that's just one of the problems.

For many folks, managing money is an exercise in frustration. We summon the skills that work so well in the rest of our lives, apply them to the financial markets -- and end up with lackluster results.

Here are just some of the qualities that help us at home and at the office, but leave us flailing around in the stock and bond markets.

We Stay Busy

If we want to get ahead at work or we want to whip the garden into shape, we get busy. Activity doesn't just seem virtuous. It also gives us a comforting sense of control, especially if we're dealing with a crisis.

But in the financial markets, staying busy is a bad idea. To be sure, if our portfolios are messed up, we will need to straighten things out initially. But once we've finished revamping our investments, often the wisest course is to keep activity to a minimum.

"The less investors do, the better their results," says Meir Statman, a finance professor at Santa Clara University in California. "If you trade, in all likelihood, you have a portfolio that's not diversified. You are hit with both unnecessary risk and trading costs."

That said, even investors with rock-solid portfolios will likely make a few trades each year. Every 12 months or so, you should rebalance, so you maintain your target portfolio percentages for sectors like large stocks, smaller companies, foreign shares and bonds. You might also do some occasional selling in your taxable account to realize tax losses.

We Work Hard

Athletes who train hard are more likely to win. Students who study conscientiously are more likely to get good grades. What about investors who diligently research their stocks? They'll probably earn mediocre returns.

The fact is, the markets are full of savvy investors, all hunting for cheap stocks. Result: If there are any bargains to be had, they don't stay that way for long. Indeed, much of the time, share prices are a pretty good reflection of currently available information.

"If you put in more effort, you'll end up with worse results," reckons Terry Burnham, co-author of "Mean Genes" and director of economics at Boston's Acadian Asset Management. "It's not the work. It's the action that comes out of the work that's the problem."

Every time we buy a supposedly bargain-priced stock, we incur commissions and other trading costs. In addition, if we trade in our taxable account, we may trigger big tax bills, further denting our returns.

We're Optimistic

Our hard work and our preference for activity lead us to trade too much and to make undiversified investment bets. But the damage to our portfolios is also driven by one of our more endearing traits: Our optimism.

"There is good evidence that optimists are more likely to remarry, they recover faster from surgery and they adjust more easily to life transitions like leaving home for college," Prof. Statman says. "But unrealistic optimism is something you want to check at the door when you enter the financial markets. Being optimistic about your investment abilities will lose you money."

We Look to the Past

Need to buy a refrigerator, find a new doctor or book a trip to Paris? For advice, we'll often turn to folks who have recently grappled with these issues -- and that's usually a smart strategy.

But with investments, relying on what's recently worked well can be a disaster. "In the financial markets, your backward-looking brain decides it likes a particular stock or a particular asset class," Mr. Burnham says. "The problem is, others with similar backward-looking brains reach the same conclusion. Now, you've got an investment that's popular -- and that makes it a bad investment. By definition, popular investments are overpriced."

We Buy Quality

When we shop for a new computer or a new stereo, we typically assume that greater sophistication is better, that reputation is worth something and that a product's price bears some relationship to its quality. But Wall Street is different.

If a mutual fund charges high fees, it is more likely to lag behind the market. If a company is widely admired, its shares may be overvalued. If an investment product is deemed sophisticated, it's often difficult to figure out how it will really perform.

"I never buy or recommend an investment product I couldn't explain to my 9-year-old son," says Allan Roth, a financial planner with Wealth Logic in Colorado Springs, Colo.

We Play to Win

We want to get that promotion, have a greener lawn than our neighbors and see our favorite "American Idol" win. "It's un-American to try to be average," Mr. Roth notes. "A tie is like kissing your sister."

Yet, in the financial markets, aiming for average is the surest way to come out ahead. We can't all outperform the market, because together we are the market. In fact, once investment costs are figured in, we will collectively trail the market averages.

What to do? We could tap into our optimism and commit to working harder and trading more. But all that will likely do is generate a fistful of investment costs and leave us lagging further behind the market averages.

That's why I favor building a globally diversified mix of index funds. You might put, say, 45% of your portfolio in an index fund that tracks the broad U.S. stock market, 15% in a foreign-stock index fund and 40% in a bond-index fund. You could build this sort of portfolio with mutual funds from Fidelity Investments, T. Rowe Price, Charles Schwab and Vanguard. Alternatively, you could use exchange-traded index funds.

Your index funds will simply replicate the performance of the underlying markets, minus a small sum for fund expenses. Sound dull? You may be more excited when you look at your results -- and you realize they're so much better than those earned by optimistic, hard-working active investors.

GETTING GOING
By JONATHAN CLEMENTS

Saturday, March 10, 2007

StockScouter

[3/2/07 Richard Jenkins writes in This Week on MSN Money:] Even if you're a buy-and-hold investor, a market swoon like Tuesday's 416-point drop is bound to get your attention. It may also start you down the risky road of questioning your strategy.

It got me to wondering how our StockScouter rating system performed in the last bear market. (I'm not saying that we're entering a bear market here, just wondering.)

We didn't launch Scouter until the bear market that began March 24, 2000, was well under way. But from Scouter's launch on Aug. 1, 2001, to the end of the bear market on Oct. 9, 2002, it vastly outperformed the wider market indexes. The 50-stock portfolio outperformed the easier-to-trade 10-stock list, but even that eked out a small gain while the major indexes lost from 15% to 28% during the period. (The portfolios turn over monthly to reflect top-rated stocks.)

Here are the numbers:

 StockScouter versus indexes in the last bear market

Top 10 Top 50 Nasdaq S&P 500 Wilshire 5000 Dow industrials
1.6% 10.0% -28.2% -22.8% -21.3% -15.5%

As all savvy investors know, a big part of making money is not losing it. StockScouter was sorely tested in its infancy and came through with a solid, even spectacular, performance. I hope you find it useful in your own investing.

* * *

[2/22/07, Jon Markman writes] Want to get rich? Here's all you have to do: Buy 10 stocks. Hold them for six months. Sell and repeat.

If that sounds too good to be true and you want to stop reading now, I can't blame you.

But that would be unfortunate because this advice is a twist on a strategy that has worked really well for 5½ years, through hell and high water. Or at least war, recession and flood.

If you follow it in a low-cost trading account, particularly one in which gains compound tax-free, then there is a distinct chance -- though not a guarantee, of course -- that you could make serious, life-changing money.

Of course, you can't just buy any old 10 stocks. They've got to be the ones ranked at the top of the class by MSN Money's StockScouter rating system. You have to be ready not just to buy them at times when you think it is a terrible idea, but also be ready to sell when you love them so much you can't bear the thought.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Four states

Arnold Van Den Berg says there are four great psychological states you should look for when buying stocks (among many other topics) in this article from OID. [via toddfinances@chucks_angels, 3/4/07]

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Value Line reports on the Dow

Value Line has made available (as a free sample) their reports on each of the 30 stocks in the Dow. [from financebguy@chucks_angels, 1/13/07]

Preys, Predators and Markets

Anthony Ogunfeibo compares financial markets to the cycle of lemming population.