Gun Control: How To Profit From Increased Demand


We have written about investing in guns before (link) but it is time to take a deeper look at Smith & Wesson (SWHC). Right now the prices of semi-automatic AR's (ArmaLite rifle) are literally up 100%. We will be looking at how much exposure Smith & Wesson has to an increase in semi-automatic sales of AR style rifles.
Exposure to Semi-Automatic AR Rifles
Looking at the chart we can see that Smith & Wesson has 22.48% exposure to the semi-automatic AR market. Growth of the semi-automatic AR rifles segment is up 109.4% compared to last year.

(Source: 12/06/12 10Q, Note: % Sales Weight was created by the author)
Demand
Demand for semi-automatic AR rifles is far outstripping supply. We can safely assume that the vast majority of retail AR weapons in the U.S. have been acquired. This is partly due to speculation -- if anyone can actually find one for sale they can flip it for a very handsome profit online.
Finding a semi-automatic AR style rifle at retail is extremely rare and even online many retail web sites are sold out or on allocated backorder. Smith & Wesson's website will redirect you to dealers to buy various semi-automatic AR style weapons, yet they are not in stock. Retailers are doing the best they can to restock but as soon as inventory arrives it is sold out in most cases.
Dennis Pratte, owner of My Gun Factory in Falls Church, VA talks aboutAR sales:
"They've sold out of just about every gun shop nationwide and just about every distributor is out of stock."
Gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson and Strum, Ruger & Co. (RGR) are experiencing unprecedented sales of the AR line of rifles. This translates into higher revenues and profits, something all shareholders love.
Parts & Accessories
Parts & Accessories are a big part of any modern sporting rifle. Smith & Wesson derives 5.6% of its revenue from this segment. Revenue in this area is about to increase though -- because with an increase in AR sales comes additional parts and accessories sales.
American Rifleman points out:
The survey reveals that 84 percent of MSR (AR) purchasers accessorize within 12 months: 22 percent at the time of purchaseand 62 percent within a year.
While this is not a huge segment for Smith & Wesson it is a positive event for the company and must be noted.
Concealed Carry
Smith & Wesson obtains almost 54% of its revenue from pistol sales. With an increase in demand for concealed carry permits, additional pistol sales will occur. Typically people who want to pack a concealed carry pistol opt for a compact pistol rather than a full size due to the bulk of a full size pistol. This means they have to buy a compact style pistol and this will translate into additional pistol sales for Smith & Wesson.
WNEP of Pennsylvania reports:
People seeking license to carry permits in Columbia County more than doubled, up 112%. Lackawanna County saw a 65% rise. Applications are up 55% in Luzerne County, 49%-percent in Schuylkill and Lycoming Counties, and 39% percent in Monroe County.
In those six counties, (concealed carry permits went) from 1329 last December to 2031 this December, an overall increase of 53%.
Parts of Washington State have experienced a rise on concealed permitrequests.
Concealed pistol license applications in Clark County quadrupled according to the Clark County Sheriff's civil department. On Dec. 14, "people were lined up out the door," said Nanci Collins, a sheriff's support specialist.
All of this bodes well for Smith & Wesson and the gun industry in general.
Share Buyback
On December 6th Smith & Wesson announced a $20 million dollar share buyback. A mere few weeks later the buyback was completed and the company announced they were going to expand the buyback by $15 million dollars. While we love and prefer dividends, buybacks are also good as it improves the earnings per share.
Conclusion
Smith & Wesson is a buy. Aggressive share buy backs on top of a buying mania will translate to higher revenues and earnings for the company. The financials look good with a trailing P/E of just 10.07 and a forward P/E of 9.07. The PEG ratio stands at .27 while the profit margin is 11.16%.
(6 month chart via Yahoo.com Finance)
The risk the company faces is that if a gun ban went into effect, Smith & Wesson would lose a very productive product line and the stock would suffer in the short term. Some of this loss would be offset by a surge in pistol sales though due to fear of additional bans. To protect against a drop in share price an investor could buy put options to guard against a severe drop in share price. Buying a put allows you to sell your stock at a predetermined price to an investor. Of course you have to pay a premium for this option but it is worth considering.
We view Smith & Wesson as a strong buy. The share buy back and unprecedented sales of semi-automatic guns will result in an increase in revenue and earnings per share.
 

4 Reasons Why Hartford Financial Can Continue To Rally


Shares of The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc (HIG), a leading provider of insurance and wealth management services, are up more than 33% over the past year. This move comes despite HIG taking significantcatastrophe loses related to hurricane sandy. There are four reasons why HIG can continue to rally.
HIG Chart
1. Valuation
Despite trading close to a 52-week high, HIG remains a compelling value play based on price/book. As shown by the chart below, in the past, HIG has traded at significantly higher valuations based on price/book. Of course, HIG is unlikely to revisit its price/book valuations prior to 2008 but, given the current macro environment, the company should be able to move back to valuations seen in 2010 close to 0.75 times book value, a big improvement from the current 0.428 times book value.
HIG Price / Book Value Chart
2. Short Interest
Despite the rally in HIG shares, short interest remains robust. Currently, short interest stands at 42 million shares or 10.6% of the float. The high short interest indicates that many are still skeptical of HIG despite the move higher. Thus, many potential converts to the HIG bull case remain to drive the stock higher. Additionally, the high short interest means that, given any positive news, a short squeeze could develop.
3. David Tepper Increases Stake By 236%
Noted hedge fund manager David Tepper recently added significantly to his position in HIG. Of course, Tepper's endorsement alone is not reason enough to buy HIG. That being said, it is a positive that Tepper, usually a value investor, not a momentum player, (think about his purchased of Bank of America (BAC) for $3 in 2009) is buying HIG after a significant move higher, not selling.
4. Sector
Right now, the financial sector has the momentum. As shown by the chart below, the financial sector as a whole has been performing very well compared to other key market sectors, and this trend shows no signs of changing. There are a few fundamental reasons why the financial sector has been so strong: the improvement in the European debt situation, the improving housing market, and the prospect that the government will allow banks to increase dividends and buybacks in 2013. As an insurance and wealth management company, HIG is well positioned to benefit from the ongoing rotation into financial shares.
XLF Chart
Potential Risks
In his piece To Hartford Management: I Wish You Wouldn't Do That, Seeking Alpha author Tom Armistead outlines some risks facing the company including the notable increase in CDS issuance. I agree with Tom that this has the potential to be a problem for HIG and the increasing CDS exposure is something of a red flag. That being said, the current bullish momentum behind the macro bodes well for HIG as the company should actually benefit from risky selling of CDS. However, if the macro environment were to change significantly HIG would likely face significant losses on this part of its business.
 

Citigroup's Deep Value Makes A Great Entry Point


With the recovery continuing for the financial stocks, Citigroup (C) looks like a strong investment for the long term. The U.S. and world economyis slowly chugging along. The U.S. housing market has turned around withprices on the rise again and record low interest rates to entice buyers. These conditions are positive for Citigroup as the company's services will be increasingly needed.
The compelling thing about Citigroup is its undervaluation. The stock is currently trading with a forward PE ratio of 8.51 and a PEG of 0.91. The most attractive valuation statistic is the fact that the stock is trading 38% below its book value per share (stock price of $39.56 vs. book value per share of $63.58). Most stocks trade above their book value per share. Many of Warren Buffett's stocks trade between two to four times their book value per share. Citigroup's stock will eventually rise above its book value per share as its fundamentals continue to improve.
The stock price overshot to the downside as a result of the financial crisis. The price should continue to rise as earnings continue to grow. Citigroup is expected to see an 18% increase in earnings for 2013. The company is expected to grow earnings annually at 11% for the next five years. As the economy improves, the need for Citigroup's loans and other financial services for individuals and businesses will increase. This will allow the company to meet or exceed its expectations.
(click to enlarge)
Although there are short-term risks with the stock, I think having a long-term investment perspective will prove successful. In the short term, if the U.S. entered another recession, Citigroup's stock could lose 50% or more of its value. However, if that happened, the subsequent economic recovery would bring the stock back up quite rapidly. Therefore, when I'm talking long term, I'm looking 5 or more years into the future.
Financial stocks have had a nice run in 2012 and unless we see a recession in 2013, I think the bull run will continue. The long-term potential rewards should outweigh the risks for Citigroup. With the stock selling under its book value per share, it has some catching up to do. Stocks selling under their book value per share can rise quite rapidly. Bank of America (BAC) doubled in price in 2012 and still trades well below its book value per share. It's not too far-fetched to say that Citigroup could double in the next year or two, given its low valuation and strong earnings expectations.
I think that a healthy string of exceeding earnings expectations will continue to propel the stock higher. The company has already put together 3 straight quarters of exceeding earnings expectations by 10% or more. If this continues, the stock will continue rising.
Overall, Citigroup stock should perform better than the S&P 500 for at least the next five years. The average company in the S&P 500 is expected to grow earnings annually at about 9% for the next five years. Citigroup is expected to grow 11% annually over the same period. The stock should beat the S&P even if it was fairly valued. However, since Citigroup is trading so far under its book value per share, I think the stock will crush the performance of the market.
 

More Proof That Share Buybacks Do Not Add Value


I had earlier written an article on Intel Corporation's (INTC) share buybacks. I explained that from a strict financial standpoint, that they are a gimmick that add no value. I encouraged smart investors to ignore the gimmick of share buybacks.
One of my colleagues in the Seeking Alpha contributor community has posted a rebuttal to my thesis. You can find the rebuttal in Josh Arnold's article titled Intel's Buybacks Are Not A Gimmick: A Rebuttal.
It is a good article, and investors should read it. I continue to disagree with the conclusions, but I do not have any intention to dispute it, as my position was clear in my original article. Instead, I decided to test if share buybacks add value through tracking the impact of such buybacks on the underlying equities.
For this exercise, I chose the PowerShares Buyback Achievers Portfolio ETF (PKW). This is the description of the ETF from Seeking Alpha.
The PowerShares Buyback Achiever Portfolio (FUND) is based on the Share BuyBack Achievers™ Index (Index). The Fund will normally invest at least 90% of its total assets in common stocks that comprise the Index. The Index is designed to track the performance of companies that meet the requirements to be classified as BuyBack Achievers™. To become eligible for inclusion in the Index, a company must be incorporated in the U.S., trade on a U.S. exchange and must have repurchased at least 5% or more of its outstanding shares for the trailing 12 months. The Fund is rebalanced quarterly and reconstituted annually.
The fund holdings are too many to list, so I have included a link. Sure enough, they include Intel, and in fact 5% of this ETF is made up of Intel. The other big components (~4%+) of this ETF are Home Depot (HD), Disney (DIS), IBM (IBM), Amgen (AMGN), and ConocoPhilips (COP).
So, if share buybacks were to work, we would have expected this ETF to do better than the S&P500, significantly better in fact. The ETF has been around for more than 5 years, so we have quite a bit of market data to test the hypothesis. In particular, interest rates have been low for most of this period, giving more credence to the claim that buybacks made sense in this period. Let's see how that has worked out.
PKW Total Return Price Chart
It seems that over nearly 6 years, the cumulative return of this ETF is nearly double that of the S&P500. Very nice, and cause for congratulations? Well, not quite. Here's why.
Note that in the above chart the ETF was virtually identical in total return to the S&P500 till about end 2010. That's about the first 4 years of the ETF's life. Then it started to diverge. So what happened in end 2010? Reported CNN on November 3, 2010.
In its latest move to jump start the sluggish recovery, the Federal Reserve announced it will pump billions into the economy.
The central bank will buy $600 billion in long-term Treasuries over the next eight months, the Fed said Wednesday. The Fed also announced it will reinvest an additional $250 billion to $300 billion in Treasuries with the proceeds of its earlier investments.
In other words, QE2 started around end 2010. QE1 went to stabilize the economy, and didn't get a chance to goose the equities of the companies doing stock buybacks. QE2 started the rebuilding process by pumping massive amounts of cash in the economy, and that trend has continued with QE3 and now QE4. That seems to have helped the equities of companies that do share buybacks more than S&P500 as a whole. For the next two years, companies that buy back shares have done better than the S&P500.
To summarize, for the first 4 years of this ETF's life, it tracked the overall market and did no better. For the last two years, after massive amounts of liquidity injection by the Fed, the ETF did marginally better, and for a total of roughly 6 years of its life, on average it returned 1.5% more than the S&P each year.
But is this 1.5% statistically significant? I decided to plot the monthly returns of the ETF vs. that of S&P500 (SPY).
(click to enlarge)
The SPY is in the X-axis, PKW is in the Y-Axis. R2 is 92%, which means this ETF basically tracks whatever S&P500 does. The intercept is 0.14%, with 95% confidence intervals of -0.2% to 0.46%. This means that statistically speaking there is no proof whatsoever than the real value of the excess monthly return from this ETF over that of S&P500 is positive. In fact, it could be negative as well.
I think this conclusively proves, at least from a statistical perspective through market testing of 6 years of monthly returns, that share buybacks do not add value. They could do a little better for short periods when massive amounts of liquidity are pumped into the market, but that excess return is in no way statistically significant and could very well be a fluke. So I stand by my earlier recommendation, that smart investors should ignore the gimmick of Intel share buybacks.
Or buybacks from any other company, for that matter. One other note, I just cannot see myself paying excess fees for buying the ETF PKW. Adjusted for excess fees, it has returned virtually nothing over that of S&P500, as one would have expected of course.
 

False Hope: Low Rates, Write-Offs Make Americans Richer By Default


In a recent article entitled "Outlook 2013: Americans Are Going Broke," I suggested that negative real wage growth would ultimately constrain the American consumer's ability to support the economy. The thesis was straightforward: wage growth which, on a year-over-year basis is near its lowest levels in recorded history, isn't keeping pace with inflation and as such, consumers will find it more and more difficult to make the discretionary purchases which help fuel the American economy.
In the course of evaluating the various counter-arguments, it occurred to me that there exists a widespread misconception regarding the relative importance of one data point in particular: the household debt service ratio, or, the share of household debt payments to disposable personal income.
This ratio recently fell to 10.61%, the lowest level since 1983. Here is a visual courtesy of the St. Louis Fed:
(click to enlarge)
The following quote from a recent Reuters article illustrates the typical interpretation of this chart:
A measure of the burden of household debt tumbled in the third quarter to its lowest level in 29 years, which should help free up money for consumer spending and support the economy.
Allow me to say that it is unquestionably true that the less money Americans need to devote to debt service payments, the more they will spend on other items, all things equal. The problem is that in the "New Normal" (a phrase coined by PIMCO's Mohamed El-Erian to describe the post-crisis environment), all things are not equal.
Richer By Default
Before discussing the reason for the outsized decline in the household debt service ratio, it should be reiterated here that households didn't take any proactive steps to achieve the "balance sheet repair" that everyone seems so pleased with. In reality, households deleveraged by default (both figuratively and literally). As I noted in a previous article, it is likely that all of the deleveraging in terms of households is attributable to defaults or write-offs. Here is a quote I have used before from Morgan Stanley's Gerard Minack:
Just as the rise in leverage was built on using debt to buy assets, deleveraging has largely put that process in reverse. Debt reduction can be financed by asset sales or, if that's not feasible, debt write-down. Estimates for mortgage defaults center around $1¼-½ trillion - implying that defaults account for all the net reduction in household debt."
For those who have to see something with their own eyes to believe it, consider the following graph which, utilizing data from the NY Fed, shows the change in mortgage debt alongside the amount of charge-offs for the same periods:
(click to enlarge)
The often celebrated "healthy deleveraging" appears to have been nothing more than a giant default party. Even those who have written optimistically about the prospects for the American consumer like Bloomberg BusinessWeek's Chris Farrell recognize this sobering reality:
To be sure, about two-thirds of the gain in household balance sheets has come through mortgage foreclosures and credit-card defaults.
More Spending?
Be that as it may, one might still wonder why, given that a lower household debt service ratio necessarily means more unencumbered disposable income, one shouldn't expect consumer spending to rise. In other words, regardless of the reason for the deleveraging, more money should mean more spending.
Not this time. Homeowners or, perhaps more aptly, former homeowners, having just experienced the financial shock of a lifetime aren't likely to simply go right back out and start spending again. As Reuters puts it (article cited above),
While a lightening of household debt burden puts the recovery on firmer ground, it also highlights a hesitance to take on new debt, which could be an obstacle to spending.
For a more academic take on the matter, consider that the Federal Reserve Board's Neil Bhutta recently analyzed the decline in mortgage debt to determine its causes and found evidence in support of both the idea that Americans are hesitant to buy a new home due to the prolonged disruption in the labor market and that reductions in mortgage debt are primarily due to defaults:
First-time homebuying appears to be quite weak [because] credit has been difficult to get. [Additionally] housing demand and the demand for mortgage debt has surely been hampered to some extent by the weak labor market. The growth in outflows can be traced largely to financially distressed borrowers exiting the mortgage market entirely either through sale or default.
If people aren't going to run out and buy a house with their extra money because they are still shell shocked by the crisis, maybe they'll use their new-found surplus of disposable income to simply go shopping instead (let's assume for now that the holiday shopping season numbers didn't just miss expectations by a mile). Not according to the data for U.S. retail sales growth:
(click to enlarge)
Source: YCharts
According to data from the advanced monthly retail trade report which was used to construct the chart above, retail sales growth fell 54.29% on a year-over-year basis in November and is currently running at 3.44% or 25.4% below its long-term average year-over-year growth rate of 4.61%.
Household Debt Service Ratio
Above and beyond the preceding discussion, the real issue with the household debt service ratio is what CreditWritedowns' Edward Harrison calls "the debt service mentality." Harrison notes that:
During the boom and bubble which led up to the financial crisis, many in the financial community looked to debt service costs in the private sector as the only relevant metric to gauge whether debt levels were sustainable.
Harrison describes two theoretical home buyers (Bob and Shirley) who watch as the value of the home they can afford skyrockets as interest rates decline. The problem is that when debt service costs are the only relevant metric, low interest rates paint a false picture of one's financial well-being:
The lower interest rates go, the more affordable any debt load becomes when debt servicing costs are the only constraint. As rates drop toward zero percent, theoretically Bob and Shirley could afford to buy practically any house. But, of course, interest rates don't move in one direction.
Beware, because this is where the curtain gets pulled back. Have a look at the following chart from Goldman which shows the debt service ratio plotted with the debt-to-income ratio:
(click to enlarge)
Source: Goldman Sachs, Fed
As you can see, it's not the deleveraging that's made the difference. It's the record low interest rates that have made the large debt loads suddenly manageable. Here's Reuters again:
The Fed has sought to help consumers dig out by keeping interest rates near record lows. It has held overnight rates near zero since December 2008 and has bought around $2.4 trillion in bonds to further lower borrowing costs.
As the chart shows, however, Americans' debt-to-income ratio is still above 100% meaning that, according to Reinhart and Rogoff, if American households were countries, they would be in trouble.
The important point is this: if low interest rates were largely responsible for driving down the household debt service ratio (and it appears, given the chart above that this is the case) and rates are currently at zero, it stands to reason that the debt service ratio will go up from here. The only way to escape this conclusion is if Americans deleverage more or start making more money. But neither of these two alternatives seem likely given that 1) there really was no deleveraging in the first place (it was mostly defaults) and 2) wage growth is at historic lows.
What I hope to have demonstrated here is that investors concerned about the outlook for the U.S. economy going into 2013 should be skeptical of overly enthusiastic interpretations of the household debt service ratio. The recent reading for that particular data point is widely heralded as proving that the U.S. consumer now has the financial wherewithal to fuel a consumption-driven recovery. This interpretation is highly misleading.
Investors should remember that the driving forces behind the great deleveraging and the improvement in the household debt service ratio are mortgage defaults and record low interest rates respectively. A country cannot default its way to prosperity anymore than it can print its way to prosperity or become richer by manipulating interest rates. It hasn't worked for the last four years and it won't work in 2013. Expect below average economic growth and similarly disappointing equity returns from (SPY) and (QQQ), as the two will form a negative feedback loop the exact opposite of the wealth effect the Fed so desperately seeks to create.
 

2013 Outlook: Lex Parsimoniae


"There are known knowns; there are things that we know
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that we now know we don't know"
But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know"
-Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2002
The economic and market environment remains as uncertain as ever as we move into 2013. One does not have to look far to find extreme risks that could propel us sharply in either direction at any given moment in time. Given these vast complexities, examining investment markets as a whole can lead to many conflicting signals. Thus, it is worthwhile to break the market down into isolated component parts to determine what is known as fact and what must be predicted. And by working to simplify the markets, it should ultimately lead to a greater understanding of what we can expect from investment markets in the coming year.
The Known Knowns
The following forces are known as fact for investment markets in the coming year. And none is more significant than the first.
Extremely Aggressive Monetary Policy - One fact we know heading into the New Year is that the U.S. Federal Reserve is ready to print money with wild, perhaps reckless, abandon. Overall, the Fed will inject more than $1 trillion into financial markets in 2013 as part of its QE3 program at a rate of $85 billion per month. And the Fed money printing is likely to be joined along the way by major programs from the European Central Bank, the People's Bank of China and other major global central banks. In recent years, such aggressive monetary stimulus programs have driven investment markets higher regardless of economic fundamentals or persistent threats of crisis. And given the scale of monetary stimulus in the coming year, it is likely that we may see more of the same in 2013. While some have questioned the efficacy of QE3 in this regard since its launch in September 2012, it is important to note that relatively little liquidity has been injected into the financial system to date under this program. This is set to change in a big way starting in January 2013, however, as U.S. Treasury purchases are added just as mortgage backed securities purchases under the existing program begin to pick up speed. In terms of investment impact, this should benefit stocks, high yield bonds and precious metals including gold and silver most. These gains are likely to come at the expense of U.S. Treasuries, particularly Long-Term U.S. Treasuries, as capital flows out of the safety of U.S. government bonds and into risk assets.
Taxes Are Going Up - Regardless of what direction fiscal policy makers chose in Washington DC over the coming year, one thing we know for certain is that taxes are going up. While the impact of these higher taxes may impact certain income earners more than others, everyone in the U.S. will be paying more in taxes than they have in previous years, even if it's 2% more out of their paycheck once the payroll tax cut expires. And if consumers and businesses are sending more of their money to the government to pay taxes, they have less money left over to spend on consumer and capital goods. This is likely to place a drag on economic growth in the coming year, which should presumably weigh on stocks and high yield bonds in favor of precious metals and U.S. Treasuries. But the heavy flow of liquidity from the Fed may help investors to ignore such fundamental truths for yet another year.
Fiscal Policy Paralysis - A fact that is repeatedly reinforced by the Federal government in Washington is that absolutely nothing of substance is going to be accomplished in addressing the critical issues facing the U.S. economy until politicians are up to their knees in the fire of the problem. And even then they are likely to find a way to dither. The recent fiscal cliff debacle highlights this point, as the media has been captivated by a debate over policy solutions that do not even begin to scratch the surface of the underlying problem. For example, the Federal debt has increased by $6 trillion over the last five years, yet we have been tortured for over nearly two months on a debate that struggles to implement even $100 billion in spending cuts. In short, nothing is going to come out of Washington to try and tackle the problems facing the U.S. economy in 2013. Instead, solutions will finally come under consideration down the road when it's potentially too late.
The European Crisis Remains Unresolved - The seeds of the European crisis were sown years ago and began manifesting themselves during the outbreak of the financial crisis back in 2008. And the problem has continued to get worse with each passing year. In 2010 the problem was Greece. By 2011 it had spread to Ireland and Portugal. And in 2012 it had fully infected Spain and Italy. As debt problems continue to mount, economic growth remains insufficient to begin to reverse the trend, particularly as the global economy continues to slow. While coordinated global monetary stimulus may help markets ignore the festering problem across Europe for another year, the problems facing the region and subsequently the world continue to mount. But just like the Fed in the U.S., the ECB appears to stand ready to throw more and more money at the problem. While one cannot solve a debt problem with more debt, the Europeans appear determined to continue trying.
Known Unknowns
The following are forces that are known uncertainties that require careful monitoring and evaluation as the year progresses.
The Global Economy - All signs point to further slowing and the potential for recession in many parts of the world in the coming year. But it remains possible that growth could surprise to the upside, particularly depending on the magnitude of monetary stimulus injected into the global economy in 2013. Any such growth may prove fleeting, but it has the potential to influence investment markets and not necessarily for the better, for it may raise inflation concerns and the thought that monetary policy makers may withdraw stimulus sooner rather than later, which of course they will almost certainly not in the end.
Corporate Profits - Corporate profits have begun slowing with margins already at post WWII highs. And with the global economy set to decelerate in the coming year, many signs suggest that we are likely to begin seeing meaningful profit margin compression as companies have little scope for further cost cuts. Corporations have defied this trend thus far, but it remains to be seen how much longer they can continue to maintain profitability and margins at current levels during the quarterly earnings seasons throughout 2013. Of course, the potential always exists for upside surprise as well, although the odds are becoming increasingly low for such outcomes.
Inflation - When central banks inject as much money as they have over the last several years into the global economy, inflation is an issue that should remain of paramount concern. While policy makers cite that inflation pressures remain largely contained to this point, one could quibble with whether current inflation measures are truly capturing actual pricing pressures. And once inflationary pressures take hold, they can be difficult to contain without a hard press on the monetary brakes. Such a response, of course, has the potential to sharply rattle investment markets.
And the last known unknown is arguably the most important.
When Reality Finally Sets In - Investment markets have floated higher for years under the influence of monetary stimulus. For the freely flowing money from global central banks including the Fed has enabled investors to completely ignore the fact that little has fundamentally improved since the outbreak of the financial crisis several years ago. In fact, much has gotten worse and precious time and resources have been squandered along the way. At some point, investment markets will finally awaken to the reality of the situation. Exactly when that will occur and what the final catalyst will be remains to be seen, but we will eventually arrive at this inflection point someday. Perhaps this moment will come when stocks arrive at a triple top around 1576 on the S&P 500 Index. But more likely, it will come quietly one day when the market least expects it. Whether this occurs in 2013 or beyond remains to be seen.
(click to enlarge)
Unknown Unknowns
It is the unknown unknowns, or the potential problems that we are not even aware that we should be monitoring, that have the greatest potential to result in a sudden and dramatic shift in investment markets. Potential candidates include the following.
Another Flash Crash - Investment markets have been infested in recent years by high frequency trading programs, which are computer driven models that result in quotes and trades being executed down to the millisecond. We have seen a number of instances in recent years where a breakdown or defect in these models has resulted in highly unusual and disruptive trading activity. While most of these incidents to date have occurred on a small scale, the potential exists for a large-scale market disruption on any given day.
Institutional Meltdown - A good deal of trading activity today occurs in the darker corners of the market, and the potential continues to exist for another Long-Term Capital Management or London Whale type unraveling where a select group of traders or a hedge fund takes on a disproportionately large position that threatens to destabilize a major financial institution or the entire global marketplace. One would have hoped in the aftermath of the financial crisis that measures would have been undertaken to diffuse these risks. But unfortunately, such activities continue to go unabated if not encouraged in the current environment.
Geopolitical Event - Numerous challenges exist across the global political landscape. The situation in the Middle East remains highly unstable with new leadership assuming power in a number of countries across the region. And the recent events in Benghazi have reinforced the idea that the threat of terrorism remains pronounced. Such events have meaningfully disruptive effects on investment markets at any given point in time.
Such is the economic and investment landscape as we enter 2013. It is an environment that is fraught with risk and must be managed carefully. But when considering all of these factors both in isolation and then collectively, we can draw the following conclusions.
Bottom Line
The Fed is set to stimulate aggressively in the coming year by printing over $1 trillion. And other global central banks are likely to join in along the way with major stimulus programs of their own. History has shown that during periods when monetary stimulus is being applied so aggressively and at such a massive scale, risk assets including stocks, high yield bonds and commodities will steadily rise regardless of how fundamentally weak the economy and corporate profits may be. Thus, until this trend is definitively broken, it should be expected to continue.
This notion, of course, raises and important question. What exactly could definitively break the trend of aggressive monetary stimulus supporting higher risk asset prices? The answer is a number of forces may cause reality to finally set in on investment markets, and they all require close monitoring throughout the coming year. These forces include the ongoing crisis in Europe, the potential magnitude of an economic slowdown or corporate profit contraction, the outbreak of inflationary pressures, or some other event that cannot be reasonably anticipated at the present time.
Thus, a hedged investment strategy remains prudent as we enter the New Year. An allocation to risk assets such as stocks, high yield bonds and commodities including copper, oil, agriculture, gold (GTU) and silver (PSLV) are all warranted given the degree of money set to be printed in the coming year. A position in TIPS (TIP) also makes sense along with precious metals and senior loans (BKLN) to protect against the threat of inflation and rising interest rates. But in recognition that downside forces may eventually overwhelm the investment market euphoria over monetary stimulus or that the stark reality that underlying fundamentals remain woefully insufficient to support stocks and other risk assets at current levels, it also remains worthwhile to complement these exposures with allocations to areas of the market that should perform well under these circumstances. This includes high quality nominal bonds (AGG), long-term U.S. Treasuries and other longer duration assets such as Build America Bonds (BAB). Holding allocations in cash or short-term bonds at selected points in time may also be warranted depending on the swiftness or seriousness of a change in market conditions at any point in time.
The coming year promises to provide more interesting times for investment markets and its participants. But a broadly diversified strategy with components that are designed to participate in any further Fed induced upside but can also withstand any unexpectedly sharp and dramatic turns along the way remains a prudent approach in the current environment.
This post is for information purposes only. There are risks involved with investing including loss of principal. Gerring Wealth Management (GWM) makes no explicit or implicit guarantee with respect to performance or the outcome of any investment or projections made by GWM. There is no guarantee that the goals of the strategies discussed by GWM will be met.
 
 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2011. Economic Challenges Articles - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger