anticitrade (99.58)

31 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, SkepticalOx (99.43) wrote:

This is a really interesting tidbit, though I would really like to know the breakdown of these earnings, and where exactly the superbears are getting their numbers from.

Report this comment

#2) On June 21, 2009 at 8:00 PM, ozzfan1317 (79.06) wrote:

Good work rec +1

Report this comment

#3) On June 21, 2009 at 8:22 PM, SkepticalOx (99.43) wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, but where does your software get it's data from?

Report this comment

#4) On June 21, 2009 at 8:28 PM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

I get my net income numbers individually from every income statement of the 4238 stocks I analyze (aren't computers great?).  It took about 12 hours to gather and analyze all the data, if there is something of particular interest let me know so I can include it in the run next weekend.  If a company did not report their 2008 data, it would offset their particular set of data.  Let me check and see if I can filter those out of this test......

Report this comment

#5) On June 21, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Varchild2008 (84.41) wrote:

Aren't "Income" statements a bit misleading though when it comes to earnings?

This analysis does not seem to consider:

1)  Bankruptcy filings  since 2007

2)  How much 2008 / 2009 income is tied to LOANs from TALF / TARP / AUTO-Bailouts and the like which can easily over inflate income statements.

3)  Income to Debt ratios... Which are far more important than looking at Pure Income.

Not sure how fancy your computer model is but if it can really dig into those 3 things and still produce as rosy a picture then I think we can say that we have a huge buying opportunity despite the market up 30% from the March Lows.

Report this comment

#6) On June 21, 2009 at 9:17 PM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

I threw out all the companies which havent reported 2008 numbers.  There were 283 of them (7% of the total analyzed) which is a little concerning.  When I adjusted for this, the total net income dropped from 906,174 to 903,588 which is a drop of .003% from 2007 to 2009.  This is not substantially different from the 2% increase I found earlier. 

Report this comment

#7) On June 21, 2009 at 9:25 PM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

Varchild2008, 

I don't know where else you would go for earnings if not the audited income statements?  I am not sure how many of these companies filed for bankruptcy...  But a pessimist could infer that every company that hasn't reported its 2008 numbers went bankrupt, which would indicate about 7% (I would bet that this number is actually a much smaller percent).  

I wouldn't think the source of financing is relavent to the companies net income.  I can see how those loans would inflate the balance sheets, but that is not relavent for this test.  Plus determining what is a good debt to equity ratio is sooooo dependant on the industy.

Report this comment

#8) On June 21, 2009 at 9:33 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

from 906,174 to 903,588 which is a drop of .003%

from 906,174 to 903,588 which is a drop of .3% (sorry, my OCD ...)

Report this comment

#9) On June 21, 2009 at 9:35 PM, checklist34 (99.79) wrote:

hey antici, rec from me, this is the kind of work somebody needs to do.

with no disrespect intended, ... earnings growth in 2008 seems like it might be a bit off...  and it seems fairly sure that 2009 earnings will be under 2007 earnings by a fairly significant amount.

is this data public or something you collected?  keep up the interesting posts

Report this comment

#10) On June 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, rd80 (99.10) wrote:

Please keep posting this type information.

One possible explanation for the discrepancy between your results and the earnings decreases reported by some analysts is financials.

You state you only consider non-financials.  But, financials are still a sizable chunk of the S&P500 and I suspect they carried more than their fair share of earnings cuts between 2007 and 2008.  I bet AIG, C, FNM and FRE alone would be responsible for a large chunk of the negative year over comps for the S&P500.

Why do you exclude financials?  Is that a conscious decision to avoid the sector or just something that falls out of the process?

 

Report this comment

#11) On June 21, 2009 at 10:05 PM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

Thanks port, you are right (good thing I give some of the numbers too huh?)

I also expected a greater difference in the 2007 and 2009 results.  I think rd80 has a good point about the financial companies.  They may represent a significant portion of the earnings drop we have seen.  I avoid finance institutions for several reasons:

They require more speculation than non-finance companies to value.  Since so much of their assets and income are subjective.

I also dropped finance companies because for the most part, they arent really producing anything (debatable).

Finally (and most importantly), my program is not built to handle their non-traditional financial statements.  

The information I am using is free and publicly available.  If my model generated any money, I would purchase a superior data source (about 4,000$/yr). 

I would like to compare the first quarter of 2009 with the first quarter of 2008...  (that would not be a trivial tweak to my system)

Report this comment

#12) On June 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM, NoMoeMoney (< 20) wrote:

I believe unemployment and consumer spending will have a greater impact on future earnings. Look what the lack of consumer spending did to the autos, and in such a short amount of time. I'd give it a few more quarters before making any hard calls on earnings. The ecomony has traded consumer debt for government debt and anything can happen before we get back to business as usual.

Report this comment

#13) On June 21, 2009 at 10:51 PM, EnigmaDude (96.57) wrote:

Very interesting analysis. Thanks for taking the time to crunch the numbers and for sharing the results!  I get the sense that the market is still under-valued and that there is still a lot of cash on the "sidelines". 

That is not to say that we won't see the market "plunge" again before it goes higher.  Especially if unemployment continues to rise. It seems that caution going forward is still warranted but there are some encouraging signs out there. LIke you I would avoid financial firms for a while as the consolidation continues.

 Great post!

Report this comment

#14) On June 21, 2009 at 11:36 PM, streetflame (31.22) wrote:

"If we assume that the average P/E in 2007 was 14"

No need to make that assumption.  Here's  an interesting link:

http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/xls/index/SP500EPSEST.XLS

You will want to look at the 'operating PE' column, not the 'as-reported PE' column, since that is the one heavily weighed down with financial losses in 2008-2009. 2007 average PE was a bit under 16.

Also note that S&P projects both operating and as-reported PE to be in the 20s for most of 2009 then get down to 12 by the end of 2010.  I personally doubt that kind of growth will materialize in the US, but if it does it will probably result in a monster stock market run.  

Report this comment

#15) On June 22, 2009 at 1:38 AM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

After reviewing the link from Streetflame, I re-evaluated all my calculations.  I found a rather significant error (which I feel quite stupid about), my sum function only included the top 1/4 of my data which had been sorted by my valuation. 

Here are the more realistic numbers (with what little credability I may still have).

2007 - Total Net Income: 1,052,545 Million

2009 - Total Net Income: 799,527 Million

Indicating a DROP of 24%!!

Not so cheery now (although I still dont think it justifies the 39% drop in price).  One interesting piece that my mistake DID yield, is it shows that there are still A LOT of companies that are makeing good money and do NOT deserve the heavy discount they are receiving.  

So if we take the 2007 P/E of 16.  Multiply that by the .64 that represents the ratio of current price for Russell 3000 vs 2007 price.  Then divide by the .76 that represents the ratio of the current earnings vs the 2007 earnings.  We get a P/E of 12.93.

So why is this soooo different from the 20ish numbers I am getting from my own averages and Yahoo's (see below)?  I have two theories:  Theory 1 is that I am an idiot and made some calculation mistake (very possible after 12:00).  Theory 2 is that only companies with positive earnings are calculated in P/E.  So when the recession hit, a large group of low earnings high P/E companies became NEGATIVE earnings no P/E companies.  Which pushed the averages high.  To back this up (and avoid theory 1), the number of companies of the 4,238 with negative earnings in 2007 were 1252, in 2009 this number was 1810.

 

When I average yahoo's numbers I get:

P/E (TTM) 19.2

P/E Forward 18.5

I also calculate these myself from income statements (and my forecasted income statemetns) and get

P/E (TTM) at 21.73

P/E (forward) at 18.97

However, those calculations are misleading because they DO NOT weight the individual P/E numbers...  It also necessarily excludes all the companies with NEGATIVE earnings. 

My point has become somewhat distorted by my rather large excel error (that dang + symbol didnt take the calculation to the bottom!).  My new point is that while a lot of companies may be in the crapper, about 40% of them have increased their net income.

Report this comment

#16) On June 22, 2009 at 1:49 AM, checklist34 (99.79) wrote:

your last #'s are fairly close to #'s that I calculated tonight myself, independently, with Zacks and Yahoo data.

stocks are cheap right now by historical standards

Report this comment

#17) On June 22, 2009 at 2:04 AM, streetflame (31.22) wrote:

That makes a lot more sense.  I don't know what operating PE ex financials is exactly but somewhere in the 17-20 range is consistent with everything I've read.  Regular losses absolutely need to be included in operating earnings, but writedowns only need to be included in reported earnings.

If the S&P estimates are correct, 2009 will be an incredible time to buy stocks.  They project 2010 operating earnings to increase 144% year over year, that would be sick.

Report this comment

#18) On June 22, 2009 at 7:18 AM, abitare (99.44) wrote:

A few points, worth mentioning....

1. The last time there was a massive FED expansion then contraction we had the Great Depression. During the Depression, P/E were 6-8, half of your current WAG.

2. 40% of all profits are from finance related "slight of hand" accounting over the last decade. How is that going to look going forward? Do you want to buy a AAA mortgage? C'mon, it is AAA!!!! Don't you trust AAA??? ahahhaha.

3. 70% of the US economic activity is consumption based. How is that activity going to happen with out home equity and stupid foreigners buying our debt? Those crazy Chinesse college students were laughing at Timmy G for a reason. I would guess they are not interestested in loaning more money for granite countertops for Lost Vegas.

4, Most US major banks are insolvent, many state and local governments are/will more towards bankruptcy. How does a state bankruptcy affect consumption?

Report this comment

#19) On June 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

Do you want to buy a AAA mortgage? C'mon, it is AAA!!!! Don't you trust AAA??? ahahhaha.

-----------------------

Amherst Securities Buys Subprime-Mortgage Bonds, Dobson Says

By Jody Shenn

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Amherst Securities Group, the mortgage-bond specialist that told clients to bet against subprime loans before the market collapsed two years ago, has spent about $150 million buying the securities.

While it’s possible all subprime borrowers will default on their loans, losses on the foreclosures won’t continue “to rise to the sky,” said Sean Dobson, chief executive officer of the Austin, Texas-based firm.

“It’s not unreasonable to expect 100 percent of them to default,” Dobson said yesterday in a telephone interview. “It’s probably unreasonable to expect only 20 cents on the dollar in recovery.”

Subprime securities generally haven’t risen in value in the past two months amid a rally among other types of home-loan bonds without government backing. A price rise for Alt-A and prime-jumbo mortgage securities, reflecting refinancing as mortgage rates plunge, is “overdone,” he said. Refinancing has boosted the value of those securities by returning some of the principal of bonds trading below face value at a faster pace.

Typical prices for originally AAA rated prime-jumbo securities climbed to about 82 cents on the dollar on May 7, from about 66 cents March 5, according to Barclays Capital reports. Similar subprime securities from the second half of 2006 fell to about 34 cents, from about 35 cents, based on a credit-default swap index, according to the bank’s reports.

In March, so-called severities, or the amount lost after foreclosures relative to loan sizes, ranged between 70.8 percent and 73.3 percent on average for mortgages underlying the four different ABX index series, according to the bank.

Loan-to-Value

That won’t rise to 80 percent or more, as many investors assume, because the borrowers who haven’t yet defaulted have different “profiles” from those who have, Dobson said. The characteristics include loan-to-value ratios, property values, loan sizes and why they took out the debt, he said.

About 34.9 percent of subprime mortgages backing securities were at least 60 days delinquent, in foreclosure or already turned into seized property in March, up from 23.7 percent a year earlier, according to Bloomberg data.

Amherst, which recently bought the securities for itself and asset managers that are clients of the advisory business, expects to reap “mid-teen” annual returns on the bonds, Dobson said. Their value may fall about 50 percent if the Obama administration’s modification plan leads to all the underlying loans being reworked, he said.

Partly for that reason, “this is not a big conviction buy,” he said. “We’re treading very carefully.”

Jumbo mortgages are larger than what government-supported mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can finance, currently from $417,000 in most areas to as much as $729,500. Subprime loans were given to borrowers with poor or limited credit records or high debt burdens. Alt-A mortgages fall between prime and subprime in terms of expected defaults.

-----------------------

(from here)

more on mortgage-backed bonds from ftalphaville here.

 

Report this comment

#20) On June 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM, anchak (99.84) wrote:

26 Recs and this is what the ultimate conclusion is:

"After reviewing the link from Streetflame, I re-evaluated all my calculations.  I found a rather significant error (which I feel quite stupid about), my sum function only included the top 1/4 of my data which had been sorted by my valuation. "

I am not finger-pointing at you - this is not an auditable site - or anything - but see you are just starting with your system - and these things are bound to happen.

Should have done some due-diligence first. Thankfully Streetflame saved me the trouble of linking the S&P documents. When you are analyzing S&P - isn't it logical to reconcile ( or try to) against it first.

NEXT STATEMENT:

Indicating a DROP of 24%!!

Not so cheery now (although I still dont think it justifies the 39% drop in price). 

Why so my friend - this is the most subjective statement in a quasi-quantitative piece.

It almost begs the question whether you understand leverage. No 1-to-1 relationship here.

Also fundamental theory suggests that

Stock Market P/E = Div Yield + Inflation + GDP

Market's seem to be always trading at a significant premium ( ie much more assumption of growth). Why - simple leverage - US GDP figures are non-levered.

So if you do a delta - that's the incremental return dependent on leverage. 

I wish things were so easy. I am not saying the sky is falling or anything - but all the statements you made - are CREDIT DEPENDENT.

Hans:

That link you posted. The 20% recovery is contingent on liquidation - ( Traditional figures are actually higher ie even with 100% default - ie with DEFAULTED loans - you recover anywhere between 30-40 cents/dollar). However this is supply dependent - which boils down to credit again.

If you looked at the Merrill -Lone Star deal ( or for any deal - even the govt PPIP program) - 20-25 cents on the dollar - but Merill funded 20 cents of it thru a credit line. Extreme leverage - and essentially rewrite/rollover of the risk - so this time if it goes sour - Merill will actually see about 100% Loss - not just default % - in $ terms.

 

 

 

 

 

Report this comment

#21) On June 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM, anchak (99.84) wrote:

Incidentally, Everydayinvestor ( Michael) - had a blog not so long ago ( mid-Feb) - I think where he argued and I kinda collaborated to figure out an alternative logic to assess P/E for S&P - this was actually triggered by the article from Seigel on the whole Weighted P/E thing - which most believe to be grossly misleading.

Michael - had a simple premise - which I liked. He basically argued that if you took say XOM and AIG - and did an index. Irrespective of whatever AIG's losses - the total loss to the shareholder and thus to the market - is really bounded by the Market Cap of AIG.  - which at that time was $1.65 BN while throwing our $64 BN in losses.

There are ancillary and linked damage to the world economy ( of course this loss needs to be absorbed ) etc - but on a pure market index logic - This argument made a lot of sense.

Of course the thing it is contingent on is the survival probability or uncertainty -  associated with the companies. In the above example its a 0/1 bifurcation - so easy.

Also what you did is I think replicable from Morningstar. Folks - please use them. In my own efforts to replicate a dependable analytical screener to replicate Piotroski's value screen - I tested data from a few sources. Morningstar seems to have the most accurate data ( there can be issues of lag) - and the MSN one is possibly the worst. 

 

Report this comment

#22) On June 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM, anticitrade (99.58) wrote:

Anchak,

It was a painful moment when I realized the stupid calculation error I made.  From your response it is obvious that I have oversimplified the P/E ratio.  Maybe you can better explain the following statements:

Stock Market P/E = Div Yield + Inflation + GDP

I was under the impression that it was irrelavent if Dividends were payed out or plowed back into the company, either way the shareholders get their share of that earnings.  Inflation also seems somewhat irrelevant since I would assume that the Earnings and the price would inflate at the same rate.  GDP seems relavent as long as you account for inflation.

Market's seem to be always trading at a significant premium ( ie much more assumption of growth). Why - simple leverage - US GDP figures are non-levered.

Can something ALWAYS be trading at a premium?  I agree that investors buy a stock because they value their future earnings, but is that really a premium?

So if you do a delta - that's the incremental return dependent on leverage. 

I missed something about the leverage here...  Could you explain?

Thanks for your help.

The title of my post has become somewhat ironic as my original data was the type of bs I was hoping to circumvent. 

Report this comment

#23) On June 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

Also fundamental theory suggests that

Stock Market P/E = Div Yield + Inflation + GDP

what I do not like about this "formula" is that you are left with 

Stock Market P/E = Div Yield when Inflation and GDP growth are 0.

But Div Yield should be positively correlated with E/P and not P/E, so that just does not seem "right" ...

Report this comment

#24) On June 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM, anchak (99.84) wrote:

Hans...I really did not get the question...are you saying that if there is no inflation and there is no growth - Yield will also go to zero? I am not really sure what to answer here - very very theoretical setup.

Div yield is in mind a cost to attract Equity capital - and other auxillary things . There are always alternatives to that capital structure funding. When things are tight ( eg banks) - it becomes a liability and it gets chopped.

The formula really ASSUMES a stable , generic scenario.

Which is to say - that if the market is a representation of the economy this relationship should be well reflected ( because thru inflation - it is assuming a balanced interest rate environment) , while yield reflects individual coroporate risk premium and of course GDP is measuring growth outlook.

You can do a lot of perturbations ( like add a conditional expectation of each of these terms happening) - future value etc.

Antic:

You might have to do something of an abberation - add me as a fav ...jk!

Div Payout:  For a pharma/research firm -that makes a lot of sense - essentially that's what growth investing is all about.If you have a vehicle of investment - that can multiply returns - why would you take capital out of the system.

However, for "Stable" businesses - the yield is the premium they are paying for the capital to stay in place. That's why all utilities have high yields and used to be "banks" too.

Statement 

"Inflation also seems somewhat irrelevant since I would assume that the Earnings and the price would inflate at the same rate"

Puzzling statement. That's why it is on the Right Hand side of the equation and the other is on the LHS. If there is a functional relationship - it should be there.

Essentially to reflect what you said.

 

Can something ALWAYS be trading at a premium?

No...read abit's comment. Also I think as recent as 1980 - we have had 8-9 P/Es. ( Also vey recently , like in Nov 2008 , the Indian Stock market had a fwd P/E of 8.5 - based on the above formula that was a distinct discount to value. I had discussed this very point with my fellow stinkyfeeters and argued that case. Most actually felt comfortable with Brazil (EWZ) - which is a commodity play , rather than EPI . Anyway , you would have done good with both)

I agree that investors buy a stock because they value their future earnings, but is that really a premium?

There is a fair degree of uncertainty in events. When you pay up today for a future price without guarantee - it is a premium. Your assurance is simple - you'll eat everything in addition to the premium ( ie above breakeven) - which is why you are paying it in the first place. Same concept works in reverse for your auto insurance doesn't it?

" So if you do a delta - that's the incremental return dependent on leverage"

This is my assertion so take it with a BIG fist of salt,OK?

The premise which I have here - is that the country GDP hopefully is unlevered ( this is not true I think). Lets say it is some mean or baseline.

We are talking about obviously Publicly listed companies - which by definition of sharing equity with the public employ leverage ( ie borrowed capital).

Hence if you assume that leverage leads to growth ( it does of course - when things are hunky-dory) - and unlevered entities may lag or at least comprise the left-hand tail of the growth curve - then the mean growth ( which is levered - and hence much more riskier) of the public companies is higher. Higher risk and volatility - but then who cares?

Thus every delta point difference you have in the P/E is really an estimate of the incremental growth you are expecting due to the levered return on capital.

I am unsure whether this made any sense.

 

 

Report this comment

#25) On June 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM, anchak (99.84) wrote:

Actually Private Equity ( or venture cap etc) - are tremendously levered - so some of the above can move around...but i think the generic argument holds

Report this comment

#26) On June 22, 2009 at 2:09 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

Hans...I really did not get the question...

--------------

Stock Market P/E = Div Yield + Inflation + GDP-Growth

-> (Inflation = GDP-Growth = 0) Stock Market P/E = Div Yield.

-------------- 

But Div Yield should be positively correlated with E/P and not P/E, so that just does not seem "right" ...

That was my point.

 

 

Report this comment

#27) On June 22, 2009 at 2:18 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

So I was trying to eliminate Inflation and GDP-growth from the equation to show the part of that formula that makes me think it is not that plausible (to me). I will look up where that formula comes from. I was just, as usual, being lazy.

I found this (here):

-------------- 

Fundamental Return: Real GDP Growth Rate + Inflation Rate + Dividend Yield

-------------- 

So that is a return and P/E is the inverse of a return (of E/P).

 

Report this comment

#28) On June 22, 2009 at 2:26 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

--------------

1. Warren Buffett in Fortune Magazine, November 22, 1999, said:

Let's say that GDP grows at an average 5% a year - 3% real growth, which is pretty darn good, plus 2% inflation. If GDP grows at 5%, and you don't have some help from (declining) interest rates, the aggregate value of equities is not going to grow a whole lot more. Yes, you can add on a bit of return from dividends. But with stocks selling where they are today (this was 1999), the importance of dividends to total return is way down from what it used to be. Nor can investors expect to score because companies are busy boosting their per share earnings by buying in their stock.  The offset here is that the companies are just about as busy issuing new stock, both through primary offerings and those ever present stock options.

At the May 2001 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, Buffett again spoke of long-term returns based on 5% for GDP and he estimated the dividend yield at 1.5% at that time. And he noted that this (6.5%) return would be before the investor's trading costs.

--------------

(from here)

I think you meant E/P ...

Report this comment

#29) On June 22, 2009 at 2:31 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

I guess that is the physicist vs. mathematician in me. I sometimes unconsciously "check the units".

Report this comment

#30) On June 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

... - this was actually triggered by the article from Seigel on the whole Weighted P/E thing - which most believe to be grossly misleading.

It was flawed (see comment #5 here). Maybe also misleading.

Report this comment

#31) On June 22, 2009 at 2:44 PM, portefeuille (99.77) wrote:

(see comment #5 here)

(see comment #5 here)

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2010

2009