Just saying………

Below is a chart of the daily volume of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange since the March 2009 S&P 500 low of 666 points until today, where the S&P 500 sits at 1,500 points.

A market that has advanced on declining volume. Just saying….

So what happens next?

If the market has risen handsomely in the face of so much worry (remember Greece, Portugal, Arab Spring, Chinese slowdowns, Japanese Debt, Iranian & North Korea nuclear threats, The Fiscal Cliff, Debt Ceiling’s etc etc.) on so little volume, then what happens if “normal” volume actually returns to this market.

Logic may not help you figure this out.

If notable, sustained volume returns to this market, it may not resemble selling pressure as you would logically assume. Logic may led you to believe that the market rose on declining volume thus it MUST fall when volume returns to normal or at least rises.

Imagine if increased volume was a new wave of buying volume? Those who sat on the sidelines citing every doomsday pundit for the past 4 years to justify their position, may suddenly have a Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO).

The FOMO effect could see markets rise swiftly leaving the “unadjusted” hanging when a change in trend does occur.

Markets are cruel, so my read is the equity markets see a small decline in the near term, only to get the bears excited followed by a surge in prices into June-August 2013, which should be fun to watch. Many investors are very good at buying high and selling low.

Bring back the volume – where are they High Frequency Traders, when you need them!

NYSE Volume Jan 2009- Jan 2013

Homonym of the month – Utility

I have just read an interesting article by Justin Fox of the Harvard Business Review that discussed the “utility” of dominating technology companies. The article commenced with the innuendo of the word “utility” suggesting its connection to power, water and telephone companies, while later it shifts its use of the word to something can offer a broad use to the population.

A utility could also be person, often a sportsperson, who has skills that are handy and can be attributed to a range of roles that they are asked to perform.

Some dictionary definitions of utility include the state of being useful, beneficial, able to perform several functions (a utility truck), an economic term referring to the total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service, utility clothing that is functional rather than attractive (there’s a market opportunity) or something useful or designed for use.

The keywords that I extract from this paragraph of selected definitions are “broad” & “useful”.

My definition, in an economic sense is: To have a choice of using a service or product that provides the broadest utility to many people for the lowest possible cost.

Does Facebook or Twitter provide utility? Well, Yes, according to my definition.

Do telephone companies or electricity utilities provide “utility”? Yes, but I’m not entirely sure.

Depending where you live, you may not have a choice of which electricity company you can use and as a result they don’t need to offer the lowest possible cost.

I wonder if a company does provide a broad utility to many people, does it then become a monopoly and the sheer goodness, genius or effectiveness of providing my type of “utility” is ultimately regulated.

The words regulation and “lowest cost” just don’t seem comfortable occupying the same sentence.

More (proposed) meddling with Superannuation

Australian union backed retirement funds along with the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees are proposing government limit the lump sums of money that an individual can withdrawal from their pension pool.

Whether or not this strengthens the case for more people participating in Self Managed Super Funds (SMSF’s) or developing cost effective SMSF’s for individuals whose retirement balances aren’t large enough for the traditional format, I urge readers to simply listen to the “What’s Not Being Said”.

If this proposal becomes legislation, please tell me how such a restriction on a retirees own savings, if a good thing??

Australia’s fiscal problems

I have just seen Australian political opposition leader, Tony Abbott announce the Liberal Party’s new “Real Solutions” Plan.

While such publications cover various issues ranging across healthcare, foreign policy and labour markets, this post is not about addressing any of those topics and nor do I know enough in order to offer intelligent advice, BUT from a financial perspective, this is what I think needs to change in Australia.

Housing is unaffordable and the increasing cost of residential rent is ridiculous.
Personal taxes are too high
Corporate tax rates are globally uncompetitive
The re-unionisation of industrial workers is dangerous
High wages are prohibitive
A strong Australian Dollar is nothing to cheer about
Attitudes about innovation & entrepreneurism need to improve

There is a whole generation who have never seen a recession (which was at least 20 years ago) or been fired from a job.

With the decline of the manufacturing sector, it seems like Australia will end up selling tourism experiences along with financial services and insurance.

The great U.S. corporate bond issuance

Singularly, you may not have noticed various U.S. companies either re-finance existing debt or importantly issue new debt, over the past year or so.
Collectively, it is a monumental amount of debt.

Cleverly, these companies have taken advantage of the almost perpetual low yields of the government benchmarks, upon which they can base their spreads against.

Companies such as Oracle, Amazon & Goldman Sachs have issued bonds either secured or unsecured against their equity at historically low yields; which is brilliant financial strategy for these companies.

With interest rates at such low levels, probability and cycles suggest that rates will rise in the coming 6 years or so.

When 10 year benchmark rates are 6% and not 2%, I can’t see a 10 year 2.5% coupon Oracle Corp. bond being redeemed early, meaning bond holders will probably suffer capital losses unless held until maturity. Just imagine holding a bond that yields 2.5% into the latter half of this decade while others are earning twice or three times that amount?

Although, we are seeing a great bond issuance cycle, capital markets will most likely miss out on the next re-financing cycle.

What happens then?

Perhaps, companies will payout maturing debt by selling their own shares, which incidentally, they accumulated in share buy-backs conducted in 2012/2013 using the cheap money that they obtained from the same investors who bought their bonds?

Charlie Munger on Margin of Safety (the Fourth Essential Filter)

Charlie Munger on Margin of Safety (the Fourth Essential Filter).

Rio Tinto’s writedown is an example of Management Risk

I appreciate the operational leverage and potential returns that a company can provide its shareholders but last week’s news of Rio Tinto $14 billion writedown on its assets illustrates the handicaps that a company’s management can provide.

The result of such an announcement is that the CEO merely resigns.

Two years ago, bets were made in acquiring a coal business for $4 billion and today its value has been written down by $3 billion. Three-quarters of this coal business has been lost in 2 years, which is yet another example of company executives making large acquisitions in order to grow their business, with shareholders money.

When playing with large sums of company money, there is no downside for these executives other than losing their jobs, but their reward is large, financially and for their own personal career and resume improvement.

For these poor operational and investment decisions, management is paid very well. In Rio’s outgoing CEO’s case he also provided shareholders with a total share performance return of 2.5% during his 6 year tenure.

In Rio Tinto’s case, financial analysts are now speculating that it may embark on a $2-$4 billion share buyback to “make up for the losses”.

Rather than investing in its existing businesses, increasing its dividend payout or sheepishly attempt another equity destroying takeover, Rio Tinto could buyback its own shares, which in turn will improve the “Earnings Per Share” metric which hopefully is a benchmark that executives have their compensation incentives tied to.

World Economic Outlook – IMF – Oct ’12

Lazy Corporate Monopolies Are Why America Can’t Have Nice Things « naked capitalism

The attached link is an interesting post that appeared on the Naked Capitalism blog.

Lazy Corporate Monopolies Are Why America Can’t Have Nice Things « naked capitalism.

David Tepper interview – Dec 2012

Below is a link to an interview broken into 3 parts on the CNBC website featuring hedge fund manager, David Tepper.

If you really, really listen, he’ll tell you a lot about investing

 

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000134410