4th Quarter 2016: Quarterly Recap and Near-Term Outlook

Published date View more posts by authorAJ Walker

The thing about crafting a useful Recap at each quarter’s end? When quarter-end is also year-end we have much more ground to cover. And if the combination of quarter-end plus year-end was not sufficiently broad, we also have the U.S. Presidential election to talk about. So I will get to work. My apologies in advance for the coming wall of text.

2016 Annual Review

You likely recall that as the year 2015 closed, financial optimists were in short supply with heightened anxiety over China’s economy and stock market, falling global demand for oil and commodities, fears of a potential U.S. recession, and negative interest rates in major world economies. On the first trading day of 2016 the U.S. equity markets began a steep decline creating the worst start of any year on record. The first 10 trading days of the year resulted in the biggest decline, about 8.25%, of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) throughout the 120-year history of that index. The S&P 500 index, a far more broad measure of the market, fell about 8% in the first 10 trading days. Results in early January appeared to confirm the most pessimistic of views as markets around the world, seemingly in sympathy, fell sharply. Not one of the nine investment strategists participating in the Barron’s 2016 Roundtable expected an above-average year for stocks. In fact, six expected U.S. stock market returns to be flat or negative, while the remaining three predicted low single digit returns at best. Prospects for global markets appeared no better, according to this group. Two panelists were sufficiently bearish to recommend outright betting against emerging markets. Then things got worse.

Oil prices fell sharply. Worries about an economic debacle in China dominated the news cycle. Stock markets in France, Japan, and the UK registered losses of more than 20% from their previous peaks. Plunging share prices for leading banks around the globe had many worried that another financial crisis was brewing. By the time U.S. stock prices hit their bottom on February 11, shares of the five largest U.S. banks where down 23%.

U.S. markets began improving in mid-February and continued that pace through midyear, just in time for investors to then face uncertainty from June’s Brexit vote. While stock prices had generally recovered, as late as June 28th the S&P 500 Index was still showing a year-to-date loss. Throughout the year, observers fretted a lagging pace of U.S. economic recovery. The New York Times reported that “weighed down by anemic business spending, overstocked factories and warehouses, and a surprisingly weak housing sector, the American economy barely improved…”. A number of well-regarded professional investors argued that the next economic downturn was fast approaching while one prominent activist predicted a “day of reckoning” for the US stock market encouraging investors to “sell everything”, to “get out of the stock market.” As late as August a prominent Hedge Fund managed announced a doubling of his downside bet against the S&P 500 Index. It would appear that well-regarded predictions are worth exactly what one pays for them.

Despite the dire predictions, equity markets around the globe staged a nice comeback throughout Q3. Aside from a few industry sectors that got continuously caught up as fodder for bi-partisan vote-pandering during the U.S. election cycle, it was a very good quarter for investors. Each new bit of economic data implied an improving U.S. economy and employment market. Stabilizing oil prices and corporate earnings helped turn the market around prior to the later-days of Q3.

Q4 Review

After highlighting the good news that Q3 brought for Lake Jericho clients, when closing the Q3 Recap we highlighted our strategy to manage increased volatility (to the down side) leading up to the actual election. The increased volatility call was an easy call, no doubt, as most investors tend to sit on the sidelines in advance of big economic or political events. When investors are sitting on the sidelines, not bidding up prices on new investments, stock prices will fall. That is exactly what happened in the weeks after the end of Q3 leading up to election day, a period in which the S&P 500 Index gave back about 2% of its year-to-date gain. Then came the new elephant in the room.

Putting aside personal biases, we believed for some time that Donald Trump would win the Presidential election. While correct about the election outcome, along with many others we were surprised about the short-term market impact. Well, we were for a few hours. But then we was not. Either way, we decided well in advance of the election to more neutrally construct risk exposures in client portfolios. That is just a fancy way of saying that we hedged our bets. We positioned portfolios to mitigate some measure of the downside risk associated with either candidate’s victory even though it meant that we would forego some of the upside potential represented by each candidate.

On election night, as early results began to indicate a likely Trump victory, global markets and the U.S. futures markets (think pre-opening indication of where markets are going that day) went into a tailspin. Near midnight in the U.S. the futures market for the S&P 500 Index and DJIA had both fallen by more than 4%. Not unlike 2016’s surprise Brexit vote results, stocks tumbled on the unexpected outcome (unexpected based upon polling data at least). To repeat one of our most often stated market realities; uncertainty is worse for stock markets than certain, but bad news. While futures markets remained in chaos through much of that night, by morning, after Trump was declared the winner, investors shifted focus from unexpected election outcomes and policy uncertainty to a unified, seemingly instantaneous expectation that his plans for higher government spending, lower taxes and fewer regulations will create more economic growth, higher inflation and, potentially, rising corporate profits. This, to us, is where a disconnect occurred between markets and realistic expectations of what a Trump administration might bring. Our internal view is that markets have put the cart well before the horse.

Within a very short window of time, post-election markets priced to perfection flawless policy execution. Implying no value judgement on policy positions themselves, the immediate repricing of market as if the Trump administration would be able to immediately and fully institute those policies is a disconnect from the administrative reality of how the U.S. government functions. Donald Trump is many things, a remarkable showman for one, but a monarch ruling in a vacuum he is not. While he has much common ground with the GOP leadership in both houses of Congress, there are many challenges ahead to crafting mutually agreeable paths to achieve many shared goals. In many respects, such as the budget deficit impacts of increased fiscal spending, Trump’s vision of some policy matters are further removed from political reality than those faced by Barack Obama and GOP leadership.

Be that as it may, the result of the November election provided a kick that drove markets to new highs before settling slightly below those highs at year-end. The S&P 500 Index finished the year up 9.5% on a price-return basis (11.96% total return basis), an impressive 20% swing from the market lows in February. For Q4, the S&P 500 Index finished up 3.25%, essentially matching the Q3 2016 return of 3.31%, but about half of the Q4 2015 return of 6.45%. So is it true that the markets love Donald Trump? Maybe. Maybe not. Some sectors have been big winners since the election, while others have not fared well at all. Although there have been a few eye-popping headline numbers, the market rally has not been as widespread as those headlines imply. This is why we prefer to think of the post-election market as getting more of a Trump-bump than a Trump-rally. At Lake Jericho we spend a great deal of time helping investors look beyond the headline numbers to better understand what is happening in the market and in their portfolios. To understand why the post-election rally is not a clear-cut as the headlines make it appear, it is important to look at some specific sectors and styles.

Sector & Style Reviews

  • The Dirty Economy: Oil drillers, gas pipelines, coal, construction and industrial equipment, infrastructure, defense, and materials are all post-election winners . The Trump administration could take the lid off coal and fracking regulations, begin an extensive repair of the nation’s roads and bridges, and rebuild defense. Each of these are generally considered pro-growth, pro-inflation measures and the markets priced these possibilities fully into the post-election rally. Again, some of these are particular areas in which Trump will likely be fighting the establishment GOP when budget and deficit realities work their way into the discussions. Unless Paul Ryan and his budget committee experience a reversal in their long-communicated austerity position, many of these projects are likely to be the subject of long, protracted budget battles should they materialize at all. Our approach to this space throughout 2016 has been through portfolio overweights to the Materials sector. During 2016 the Materials sector bested the S&P 500 Index total return by nearly 10%, providing a significant tailwind for client portfolio performance.
  • Value Bias: We regularly discuss Lake Jericho’s “value” bias investment style, versus a “growth” oriented investment style. We use the term “bias” purposefully, as we are not a pure value investor, rather we tend to more heavily weight value-oriented investments more than the style itself represents in the U.S. equity market. During the past several years, particularly during 2015, stock market increases were driven in part by investor enthusiasm for fast-growing companies (“growth” oriented companies) with marginal, even no, profits. Many value-oriented strategies (which seek to buy and hold profitable businesses when they are trading at discounts to intrinsic value) did not fully participate in the market’s returns. This was part of the reason that some Lake Jericho portfolios underperformed the broader markets during 2015. However, as we regularly reinforce, when these types of environments persisted in the past they consistently ended with big rewards for value-oriented investors maintaining their discipline through the cycle. 2016 in total, and particularly post-election 2016, was a validation of this discipline. Each of the sectors discussed above (banking, financial services, infrastructure, industrials, and defense) have been considered “value” investments for a number of years.

Shifting benchmarks a bit (merely because Morningstar, Inc. does a better job of quantifying value/core/growth style performance differences), Morningstar reports that while a 100% U.S. large-company, core portfolio returned 13.75% for 2016, its value-oriented counterpart returned 18.91% while its growth oriented counterpart returned a meager 1.79%. These performance differences between value/growth styles become even more pronounced as one moves down in company size through mid-cap and into small-company stocks. These combinations of style bias provided a significant tailwind for client returns.

  • Small Company Bias: Small-company stocks tend to be more economically sensitive. Economic data has been strong the last two quarters. With the election over, Wall Street finally seems to finally be paying attention to our improving economy, and the potential impact of Trump positions on smaller U.S. firms. Investors are betting that a Trump administration will focus on policy changes positive for the U.S. economy but less so for the global economy. Since small-company stocks generate a larger portion of their revenue in the U.S., small-company earnings will be less affected by potential negative ramifications in foreign markets. Also, if Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress lower domestic corporate income taxes as many predict, small companies will benefit most. Further, large companies with a major international footprint could be adversely affected when Trump seeks to renegotiate global trade agreements. They could even find themselves subject to additional penalties if new laws are enacted adversely impacting companies that operate abroad and import products back into the U.S. market. Rising interest rates have already caused the U.S. dollar to strengthen, another headwind for large companies with global operations. Small companies operating exclusively in the U.S. avoid this problem.

In the weeks following the election, the Russell 2000 Index (a commonly used index for U.S. small-company stocks) gained 16.14% from the pre-election close to a new high-water mark. Although the Russell 2000 Index would give back about 2.25% before year-end, the spread in performance between small-company stocks and large-company stocks post-election was the widest it has been in about 14 years. Our approach to small-company investing bested the S&P 500 Index by nearly 15.00% during 2016. This excess performance combined with the fact that we overweight small- and mid-sized company stocks provided significant tailwinds for client portfolios during the year.

  • The Rolling Tech-Wreck: On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Technology sector (the biggest sector of our economy by market capitalization) was a complete wreck post-election. In fact, 2016 has been filled with mini-cycles within the various sub-sectors of Tech. Post-election, anything tech related was considered to have a giant target on its back for the industry’s nearly absolute support of the Clinton candidacy. Significant concerns loom in the background over whether Trump will expand the government’s surveillance powers and attempt to weaken security and encryption. Trump vowed to “penetrate the Internet” to prevent ISIS from using it to recruit fighters. He chastised Apple for refusing to create a back door that would let the FBI unlock an iPhone used by the attackers in San Bernardino, Calif. Each bit of rhetoric has sent chills through Silicon Valley and prompted a flood of responses from engineers and big company leadership. Reservations exist about staffing as during the campaign Trump attacked the H-1B visas program for high-skilled immigrants, only to walk back the statement in private conversation. During the campaign, many feared that Trump would serve to stifle competition via FCC appointments only to have him make later comments that were pro-competition. His campaign’s only policy adviser, Stephen Miller, seemed uninterested in tech and made little outreach to the industry. Lobbyists and officials from tech giants beaten down in the post-election market said they would need to watch closely for clues to Trump’s tech policies. But in fairness to the Trump administration, the difficulty expressed by many companies to know how Trump would act is largely because they had not had any contact with the Trump campaign. And some Silicon Valley investors and entrepreneurs acknowledged that he could be more friendly to business than Clinton, opening up some opportunities for start-ups in emerging areas, such as financial technology and the gig economy. Overall, the Trump campaign has said very little in absolute terms about issues affecting the tech industry and instead focused largely on manufacturing. In the end, client portfolios that were overweight to technology sub-sectors (such as cloud infrastructure and semi-conductors) did well during 2016 as the sector slightly outperformed the overall S&P 500 Index. But post-election and heading into the new year the sector dramatically underperformed the broader market. This is a space that appears to be stretched in valuation and is a space we consider to be a bit of a challenge for 2017.
  • Healthcare: The healthcare sector presents, currently, a confounding challenge. Fundamentally speaking, valuations are attractive across the sector. There are many great companies, doing great work, and achieving wonderful results. There are also some knuckleheads that can’t keep themselves out of the news for tone-deaf business strategies. While for 2016 the “healthcare” sector was the worse performing S&P 500 market sector, our portfolio overweights to the medical devices and technology sub-sector provided marvelous results for client portfolios. Unfortunately, portfolios with additional allocations to pharmaceuticals, and/or biotechnology, struggled to keep pace. During the presidential campaign, Clinton was often critical of the pharmaceutical industry when it was likely more appropriate to focus on specific companies and their pricing policies. It appeared that the market is incapable of differentiating between pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies so both sub-sectors would get taken to the woodshed. Her defeat suggested that the regulatory environment for drugmakers and research companies could be more lenient than many expected before the election. Not surprisingly, post-election the drugmakers did very well, although at the time it was more about what Trump had not said than what he had. Biotech and pharmaceutical stocks swung up sharply the day after the election and continued to climb for about a week. But then one prominent drug-company CEO noted in a speech that drug prices were a populist issue, implying that investors were getting ahead of themselves thinking Trump will leave companies alone. Days later, Time magazine published an interview with Trump in which he said he was “going to bring down drug prices”, a position he reiterated in a post-election news conference and in interviews. Sharp declines resulted.

In fact, Trump is not really seen as good news for anything in the healthcare space. His plan to unravel the Affordable Care Act has hit some healthcare stocks very hard. With the ACA unlikely to survive in its present form under a Trump administration, the future health insurance of some 20 million Americans is uncertain. If Congress and the incoming president roll back the ACA’s subsidized individual insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion, many of those 20 million Americans insured under those provisions could lose coverage. Millions of potential patients for doctors would no longer be able to afford healthcare, and markets appear to think that could mean lost business for hospitals, medical service companies, medical technology, and even firms focused on R&D. Whatever the GOP “repeal and replace” plan might look like, it must be a comprehensive measure to soothe market fears about this crucial segment of the economy. This is the confounding part of the sector; attractive valuations with otherwise attractive prospects but subject to the greatest political risks in recent memory.

  • Interest Rates, Currencies, and International Markets: It should be no surprise to any Lake Jericho client that our typical portfolio will have significant allocations to international investments, both stocks and bonds. This past year in international investments is a bit difficult to get one’s head around without some discussion of currency values and interest rates. They are all connected in complex ways, but I can break down the complex relationship in one dangerously over-simplified, run-on sentence — When country A has a higher rate of inflation than country B, then country A will also have higher interest rates than country B, and those higher interest rates will incentivize investors to sell investments held in country B, use the proceeds to buy country A’s currency that they then use to buy investments in country A. That is the dynamic in post-election U.S., a bit of “which came first, the chicken or the egg” dynamic. But they are all countervailing forces at work against one another as they seek some long term equilibrium. Using this pattern (assuming that we are in a virtuous inflationary cycle rather than a destructive inflationary cycle) we can discuss how these moving parts are affecting client portfolios.

A number of Trump’s pro-growth items will demand much higher government spending (fiscal policy) to achieve. Expansionary fiscal policy is necessarily inflationary (growth=inflation). That is the whole point. Meanwhile, restrictive trade policies that make imported goods more expensive for American consumers, or a crackdown on immigration (possible labor shortage) would most likely also lead to higher inflation. Two things happen in an growth/inflationary period; (1) stock prices rise because stock investors assume corporations will earn more, and (2) bond prices fall because bond investors demand higher yields to protect them from inflation. Suddenly, the U.S. stock market and the U.S. bond market look much more attractive to the world’s investors. To capture the higher returns/yields available in the U.S., international investors start buying the U.S. dollar so they can make new investments in U.S. securities. Suddenly, again, you have a much stronger U.S. dollar, higher U.S. investment values, and lessened demand for international securities.

In local currency terms, equity performance in many international markets was stellar during Q4. Eurozone equities were stronger over the quarter, with the MSCI EMU index returning 8.1%. In the UK, even in the face of a looming hard BREXIT, the FTSE All-Share index rose 3.9% over the period. The Japanese equity market rose each month in the quarter to produce a strong total return of +15.0%. However, when one accounts for the affects of the strong U.S. dollar on currency adjusted returns, these areas of excess performance are much more muted and in some settings the currency affect resulted in negative returns. For example, the unhedged MSCI EAFE (Euro, Australasia, Far East) Index gained just 1.5% with dividends, or 10.5% less than its U.S. counterpart, the S&P 500 Index. Aware of this heightened risk, Lake Jericho executes our international allocations using multiple strategies. In some situations currency exposure is unhedged, while in others the exposures might be partially or even fully hedged. Regardless, on average our higher-than-typical international allocation was a drag on client portfolio performance during 2016. Our mix of strategies did result in net gains for clients for the year, but the return did lag the broad U.S. market.

  • Interest Rates and Bonds: Without diving into the specifics, one can view bond markets as a mirror for growth expectations. Despite the volatility in both the domestic and the global bond markets, expectations for global economic growth tentatively grew more optimistic during Q4. It appears that others are beginning to increase their global growth outlooks and are now more in-line with the expectations that we have had internally for about 18 months. We were correct in our Q4 Outlook that the U.S. economy was on sure enough footing that the Federal Reserve’s FOMC would take the next step in rate normalization. Of course, we actually believe that they should have taken that step at least four times by now. So it isn’t that we think we are smarter than other folks, rather we tend to embrace the data in our decision-making earlier than other folks.

For much of the year, we have talked about how our lower-duration bond portfolios lagged the returns of the broad bond market as long-term interest rates continued to fall. Our preference to use domestic bond allocation as a ready source of liquidity and as dampener of stock volatility means that we are not chasing returns from longer duration bonds. Anticipating the affects of rising interest rates was as much of a reason as well. As previously stated, during Q4 bond yields moved higher and the yield curves steepened much as we had anticipated for much of the year. As the tides turned, post-election, and rates rose quickly, our bond portfolios held up much better than the broad bond market. In the end we were able to provide lower volatility and higher returns for clients than traditional long-duration bond funds for 2016.

Like domestic bond markets, global bond market movements were overwhelmingly driven by political factors. At the forefront of the political dynamics stood the victory of Donald Trump, but upcoming elections in Europe also rose in prominence as potentially destabilizing influences. The uncertainty surrounding the UK’s negotiations to withdraw from the European Union also impacted bond portfolios significantly. Some level of global bond exposure is standard for Lake Jericho managed portfolios. Not surprisingly, it is also an allocation that we use differently than most managers. As such, while most global bond allocations disappointed during Q4, our allocations bested broad market bond indices by nearly 11%, and even beat the S&P 500 Index by more than a full percentage point.

So what does all of this mean for us going into this new year? The Trump-bump has left stocks historically expensive relative to their intrinsic valuations. The Shiller Price-to-Earnings Ratio is a commonly used, though not without flaws and limits, measure of how expensive stocks are relative to their intrinsic values. It shows the ratio of S&P 500 Index company stock prices to their earnings, after adjusting for a set of macroeconomic factors. As 2016 closed, the Shiller Ratio was 28.8. The only times the Shiller Ratio has been higher were right before the 1929 crash, the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, and the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. I am NOT implying that a stock market crash is imminent. I am NOT implying an abiding faith in the Shiller Ratio. It is NOT even part of the set of metrics that we use internally. All I am saying is that stocks have generally gotten very pricey lately and most popular, independent, simple measurements do tend to agree. It creates an uncomfortable time to make new investments for a value-biased firm like Lake Jericho.

This is also a bit of a double-edged sword for us and our clients. While existing investments enjoyed a nice run-up in value, it has become increasingly difficult to get cash positions and new deposits invested. We suspected that there will be a period of downward pressure on markets after the December FOMA meeting through the end of the year and perhaps into the new year’s earnings reporting season. This did happen and created a few opportunities for us to get the majority of cash and new deposits invested. As for the remaining cash, new deposits, and the remaining inverse positions we hold, we remain constantly on watch and are being very careful about allocation and timing decisions of new investments.

Generally speaking, we are continuing with our long-term global economic growth estimates for both domestic and international markets. Our targets, generally, remain the same as those we have held for the past year with higher expectations for both foreign developed and emerging markets than for the U.S. market. As such, we will maintain our healthy allocations to international investments, less so despite the period of underperformance but more so because the period of underperformance leaves international investments as one of the few places where valuations remain attractive. For the near term we are expecting reduced market volatility. We are not alone. A wait-and-see attitude persists in the markets right now, a breather as it were, to see exactly how fast, or slow, or how much of the Trump agenda might materialize. We suspect that any hiccups along the way will have immediate impacts upon securities prices.

Most importantly, we are still formulating our sector strategies for 2017. We typically have these matters settled and executed by this point in the new year. However, the Trump presidency (more specifically the Twitter presidency) has added additional complexities that we are still sorting out how to properly evaluate and manage. In a time when a single Tweet can send an entire industry group into a tailspin, we are revisiting some aspects governing how “long-term” our sector outlooks and strategies should rightly be. As is typical, a more simple framework of embracing sensible asset allocation and broad diversification is likely the best strategy in what could be a more volatile environment. In the final analysis it is possible that for some time we will simply be more “core” focused than in the past in the hope that the Twitter-in-Chief settles more calmly into his new role. As 2016 closed, the U.S. market reached new highs, and stocks in a majority of developed and emerging market countries delivered positive returns for the year. The 2016 turnaround story highlights the enduring importance of diversifying across asset groups and regional markets, as well as staying disciplined despite uncertainty. Although not all asset classes had positive returns, most broadly diversified portfolios logged attractive returns in 2016, a reality most could not imagine early during the year. Maybe 2017 will be just like that.

We are available at any time, any day of the week, to discuss specific portfolio and performance questions that you might have. I will also be in touch with each of you in the coming weeks to discuss any changes in strategy that should be considered, or to walk through any administrative tasks that might be needed. Until then, be well, enjoy the rest of your week, and thank you!

A.J. Walker, CFA CFP® CIMA®
Founder and Senior Consultant
Lake Jericho, LLC

3rd Quarter 2016: Quarterly Recap and Near-term Outlook

Published date View more posts by authorAJ Walker

The thing about crafting a useful Recap at each quarter’s end? Rare times do exist when nearly every style tilt deployed by a manager contributes positively to superior investment performance and the following quarterly review practically writes itself. This quarter-end Recap is such a time for Lake Jericho. But before diving into the Q3 Recap, for context let us first revisit a few points made in the closing of the Q2 Recap.

Closing the Q2 Recap I highlighted what we believed to be the most significant near-term challenge facing us as your investment manager; global political instability and the impact upon economic growth forecasts. I lamented our diminished ability to confidently estimate global growth expectations with the challenge of evaluating potential outcomes of uncharacteristically significant qualitative factors, such as political uncertainty, that fundamentally influence those expectations. While we had before us the data supporting a forecast for broad economic expansion in the U.S. and international markets, we also had before us a great deal of political and social uncertainty. We still do. Our projection at that time was that despite statistical evidence supporting a positive growth bias for both domestic and international markets, the political and social uncertainty would leave us flat for a period of time. Were you to read a sampling of other firm’s already published Q3 investment reviews what would you find? You would observe a pattern in those reviews along the line of “solid but uneventful quarter”. If only looking at the “headline” indices (those you hear about on the evening news), words like “solid”, “uneventful”, and “flat” are generally on point. But the headline indices do not tell the total story.

Most of those other investment reviews minimize the volatility that surrounded the end of Q2 and the early days of Q3. You might recall the surprising June 23rd “Brexit” vote in which the U.K. elected to leave the European Union. Markets reacted wildly, resulting in a significant downturn in global equity markets the following two trading days. U.S. stock markets recovered strongly the next two trading days after those. Shortly into Q3 the major U.S. equity indices had sufficiently rallied to sit comfortably at new all-time highs. Foreign developed markets, and particularly the E.U. markets, were much slower to recover but did so over the course of Q3. Mostly. So sure, it was a “solid but uneventful quarter” once we got past the first few weeks of Q3. If marking the post-Brexit recovery as beginning on June 28th, U.S. large-company stocks were up 8.9% through September 30th, with most of that recovery happening by July 8th. Measured from the open of Q3 to close of Q3, U.S. large-company stocks were up 3.8% for the quarter. So after that quick rebound within the first two weeks of Q3, U.S. equity markets as measured by large-company stocks moved within a narrow trading range for the remainder of the Q3. The CBOE’s S&P 500 Volatility Index (the VIX), a broad measure of market instability, reached lows in Q3 seen only a handful of times in the past 25 years. But large-company stocks do not tell the total story.

Chart 1 illustrates the difference between large-company U.S. stocks (the MSCI USA Large-Cap Index represented by the black line), small- and mid-sized company U.S. stocks (the MSCI USA SMID Index represented by the blue line), and international stocks (the MSCI EAFE Index represented by the gray line) for the post-Brexit recovery period. When you chart the recovery of large-company stocks in the U.S. compared to small-, mid-, and international company stocks you see that valuable opportunity existed over the course of Q3 to achieve superior relative performance versus the performance of the headline/large-company indices.

Large, SMID, International Stock Post-Brexit Performance

In fairness and full disclosure, let’s examine the same index data in Chart 1 but move the start date back 18 months to April 1, 2015, prior to the past year’s major economic events. Chart 2 shows market impacts of Grexit to Brexit, the continued trudge out of the depths of the U.S financial crises, heightened concerns regarding global growth rates, commodity and energy price collapse, dollar strengthening, fears of rising domestic interest rates to actual real negative interest rates abroad, and the most bizarre election cycle in memory. Chart 2 highlights two market tendencies that influence Lake Jericho’s equity management results over time. The first tendency is that during periods of heightened market volatility (the more palatable industry term for market declines) there exists a thing called “volatility clustering”. Volatility clustering, again a palatable industry term, means that when things go south, most everything (all types of stocks, bonds, alternative investments, everything) go south together. It’s a particularly vexing challenge to portfolio diversification as a means for risk reduction as the hoped-for risk reduction benefits of diversification tend to disappear just when you need them most. This tendency greatly influences how Lake Jericho views and manages volatility in client portfolios. The second tendency is that during periods of heightened market volatility investors flock to the “save haven” of U.S. securities, particularly U.S. government securities and large-company U.S. stocks. This “flight to safety” compounds and extends the downward pressure on other sectors of the investment universe. These tendencies are all on display in Chart 2. First, during sharp downturns all parts of the market tend to move down together. Second, during periods of heightened uncertainty few, if any, sectors will outperform large-company U.S. stocks. Third, when markets recover it is possible, through Lake Jericho’s strategic and tactical sector diversification methods, to meaningfully recover lost ground.

Large, SMID, International Performance Since 4/1/2015

While Lake Jericho fully expects to capture a great percentage of upside in rising markets, and is adept at limiting downside risk during volatile markets, our strategic and tactical sector allocation methodology is most successful at capturing excess return when markets are less directionally clear and advantageous trading opportunities are more abundant. Our forecast for a flat market, combined with our sector allocation decisions, and opportunistic trade execution provided for a solid, if not superior, investment performance during Q3. I will now walk through that decision making process with you and detail how each decision impacted overall investment performance during the quarter.

Lake Jericho’s long-term portfolio construction process involves five distinct levels of strategic decision making. The first level in our process is the global allocation decision; how much of a portfolio should be invested in international markets versus invested in the U.S. market. Our long-term outlook for growth rates in international markets continues to exceed that of our long-term outlook for U.S. growth. The higher growth expectation is why we invest significant assets in international markets. Our allocations are less than a global market-neutral allocation, of course, as all Lake Jericho clients are U.S. based. However, our allocations are higher than the typical U.S. based investment advisor. These global investment decisions then inform asset allocation decisions amongst stocks, bonds, and alternative asset classes within U.S. or international markets (the second level of the strategic decision making process).

As demonstrated in Chart 2 above, the past 18 months have been a challenge as a result of this higher international equity allocation. But just as we said in our Q2 Recap, mean-reversion is real and is part of the reason we remain true to our discipline and committed to our total international allocation level within portfolios. This commitment was rewarded during Q3 as international equity investments as measured by the MSCI EAFE Index returned 6.9% while large-company U.S. stocks returned 3.8%. Even our somewhat beleaguered overweight to E.U. equities returned 5.0% during Q3, besting large-company U.S. stocks by 1.2%. Believing that the U.K. would soon signal the formal process for leaving the E.U., and that the post-Brexit recovery for non-currency hedged U.K. stocks would slow, we did reallocate most E.U. portfolio overweights to existing, and less concentrated, Developed Markets positions prior to quarter-end. As we anticipated, on October 2nd British Prime Minister Teresa May did report that the U.K. would invoke Article 50 by the end of Q1 2017, triggering the formal process of exiting the E.U. and a pull-back in U.K. and E.U securities.

Turning to domestic market decisions and more widely recognized indices, the S&P 500 Index also returned 3.8% for Q3, for a YTD return through September 30th of 7.8%. Small- and mid-sized company stocks as measured by the Russell 2500 Index fared far better with a quarterly gain of 6.6%, for a YTD return through September 30 of 10.8%. Chart 2, again, highlights the outperformance of large companies versus small- and mid-sized companies from April, 2015 through the early days of 2016, then the reversal of that performance pattern since mid-February. Chart 1 makes more clear this continued divergence during Q3 during which small- and mid-sized companies narrowed 2015’s performance gap significantly. These “size” decisions are another among the five levels of our portfolio construction process. Investment performance during Q3 was helped by our continued overweighting of small- and mid-sized companies versus a U.S. equity market-neutral portfolio.

Company valuation metrics are yet another distinct level of our long-term decision making process. Company valuation categorization is a combination of quantitative measurements and qualitative art, referring to companies as value-oriented, growth-oriented, or core. In layperson’s terms, it boils down to “how expensive is the stock versus its earnings expectations”. Although Lake Jericho managed portfolios most often represent elements of each category, our long-term bias tilts toward value-oriented investments. Some refer to our style as “growth at a reasonable price”, a fair label as far as labels go. When examining Chart 3 below, you will see that value-oriented investment strategies (the gray line) continue to outperform both growth-oriented strategies (the blue line) and core strategies (the black line) during 2016. After underperforming both growth and core strategies for all of 2015, the trend reversed during Q1 and value strategies have outperformed since. Value strategies have now outperformed both growth and core strategies for the trailing 18-month period. Value-oriented strategies, which we do significantly overweight versus a market-neutral portfolio, have contributed positively to portfolio performance by besting core strategies by 2.0% and growth strategies by nearly 8.5% thus far during 2016.

Core, Growth, Value Strategies

As for bond markets, they were surprisingly calm in Q3, particularly when compared to the tumultuous final week of Q2. As with the equity markets, initially negative reaction to the surprise Brexit vote quickly faded and bond markets returned to the typical task of assessing economic data and policy moves from the world’s major central banks. In the US, economic momentum continued to track broadly in a positive direction and by September the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee was split on whether to increase interest rates. The extension of accommodative policy by the Bank of England in August pressed gilt yields lower, while the European Central Bank’s decision to leave its current range of support measures unaltered left Bund yields unchanged. And then there is Japan. The Bank of Japan already owns about 40% of Japanese government bonds (JGBs). At its current pace of buying, the BOJ would hold about $2 out of every $3 of existing JGBs by 2020. Most doubt that any additional efforts by the BOJ to jump-start economic growth would have an impact, and would most likely have unforeseen and unintended consequences. Japan, along with China, are big question marks in Asian markets and the reason we underweight both equity and bond exposure to the region.

At home, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield climbed from 1.47% to 1.59% in Q3. The 2-year U.S. Treasury yield climbed from 0.55% to 0.75% in Q3. Spreads between 10’s and 2’s have been steadily decreasing meaning the incentive to invest longer term is increasingly less compelling. Increased yields were enough to slightly suppress bond market total returns during Q3, but certainly not enough to push returns into negative territory. The Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, a broad measure of bond market total return positioned somewhere in between 2-year and 10-year bonds (a gross over-simplification but an acceptable way to frame the idea) was up 0.8% is Q3, up 5.8% year-to-date, and up 5.2% for the last year through September 30th. Our U.S. bond holdings returned about 0.5% for the Q3, 3.6% year-to-date, and about 3.2% for the year ending September 30th.

US CMT Treasury Yields, 10's and 2's.

We have maintained, and continue to maintain, a less yield-sensitive position for clients than that represented by the Aggregate Index. With interest rates at historical lows, we feel that there is much more risk of interest rates rising in the U.S. than of rates continuing to fall. This low-yield reality is a significant element in why traditional methods of portfolio diversification are less effective today, and part of the reason why volatility clustering is on the rise. Our U.S. bond positions remain invested at a 2.8 year duration, versus the Aggregate Index duration of about 5.5 years duration. Lower duration bond investments will not fall in price as dramatically as a longer duration investment when interest rates increase. The best way to think about duration and how it represents risk to bond investment performance is that should interest rates increase equally across the maturity spectrum, a 2.8 year duration investment will be negatively affected by about half of what the 5.5-year duration investment would be. However, if interest rates remain the same, or fall, the shorter duration investment not only has a lower yield, but also will not increase in value as dramatically as the longer duration investment. Our global bond holdings currently have a negative effective duration, meaning that this portion of client portfolios performs positively in periods of rising interest rates. That is the trade off we make to mitigate price risk in the bond allocations of our client portfolios, and one of the few portfolio decisions that detracted from relative performance during Q3. We are sticking with that decision.

Finally, strategic and tactical sector weighting is the fifth level of our portfolio construction process and an important part of how we add value over time. Few portfolios will match all sector allocations, or sector allocation percentages exactly, or the timing of investments perfectly, and these factors certainly impact exact contribution to performance of our sector decisions. However, our process of underweighting U.S. equity market-neutral benchmark allocations in favor of overweighting higher expected growth sectors (currently materials, medical devices and instruments, and biotech/genomics) added about 0.50% in excess return to client portfolio during Q3. Our pharmaceutical sector overweight has not performed as expected, and remains hamstrung by negative headlines about poor leadership, moral hazard related to aggressive pricing strategies, and the resulting political rhetoric in the election cycle. Pharma sector overweighting, where present, reduced portfolio performance by about 0.18% during Q3. Finally, while the consumer space has remained consistent during this year’s volatility, that strength has not translated well into an our forecasted increase in broad discretionary spending. Evidence that it might turn before year-end was fading, and trading opportunities afforded us to exit our consumer discretionary positions at slight gains during Q3. The gains did not move the needle, so to speak, on overall performance so we reallocated the proceeds to other existing sector positions. The net effect to client portfolios during Q3 was about 0.32% of additional return due to our combined sector decisions.

So what does all of this mean for us going into the final lap of 2016? We continue to see upside in our long-term global economic growth estimates, with higher expectations for both foreign developed markets and emerging markets than for domestic markets. For the near term we are projecting greater market volatility. Markets seemingly got accustomed to the recent summer lull, but we fully expect the reprieve to be short-lived. As we trudge towards U.S. election day we expect more of the same range-bound activity, but expect it to be…well…more active. Post-election, should Secretary Clinton take the White House and the GOP retain the House, we expect another round of record highs for U.S. equities, a continued rebound in developed and emerging market assets, and continued strength in global bonds. Should Trump take the White House? Or should Clinton prove successful and the Democrats take both houses of Congress (a long-shot to be sure)? I am not alone in projecting that all bets are off under either scenario. I feel no need to venture into the politics of either scenario, only to repeat one of our most often stated market realities; uncertainty is worse for stock markets than certain, but bad news. A Democrat in the White House, GOP-controlled houses of Congress, and total gridlock in Washington might be bad news, but it is a certainty that Wall Street knows and perversely finds comfort.

Any other leadership combination creates uncertainty and could be bad news for the markets. Bad for how long depends on the nature of the combination. As we have marched towards election day, we have been building larger-than-typical cash positions in all of our portfolios to provide additional measures of down-side protection. As well, in certain portfolios we are tactically deploying small allocations to investment vehicles that are, negatively correlated with the S&P 500 Index, or to other specific at-risk sector exposures. These “inverse” tools are inexpensive and effective methods of securing portfolio insurance that directly benefits from down-side movements.

Post-election, we expect the U.S. Federal Reserve to press forward at their December meeting with increasing interest rates at home. We expect other major central banks will recognize the limits on their own easing policies. Again, we suspect that there will be downward pressure on markets after that December meeting through the end of the year and perhaps into the new year’s earnings reporting season. We plan to remain a bit cash-heavy and relatively more defensive compared to our normal positions through the early days of 2017. How the Q3 earnings reporting season unfolds might further inform how we position portfolios through year-end. If significant events unfold that dramatically alter our views or strategies I will be in quick contact as usual.

We are available at any time, any day of the week, to discuss specific portfolio and performance questions. I will also be in touch with each of you prior to year-end to conduct a thorough review of goals and objectives, make any needed changes as a result, and to walk through a few administrative tasks that we need to tackle going into 2017. Until then, be well, enjoy the rest of your weekend, and thank you!

A.J. Walker, CFA CFP® CIMA®
Founder and Senior Consultant
Lake Jericho, LLC

2nd Quarter 2016: Quarterly Recap and Near-term Outlook

Published date View more posts by authorAJ Walker

The thing about crafting a useful investment review at each quarter’s end? I’ve been writing such reviews for more than 20 years and at times I struggle for days (if not a week or so) trying to decide what it is that I most need to communicate. This quarter-end has been one of those times. Often an appropriate review does require one to artfully connect many of the complexities and nuances of the markets. Most times, however, the appropriate review focuses on a short and direct message. Fortunately, even though I have to go through the struggle, I eventually remember that I overcomplicate things just when the message need be most simple. My short and direct message for this quarter? All things considered, we all did pretty well.

When we step back and consider all the crises, both manufactured and real, of the past couple of years (from Grexit to Brexit, from the long trudge out of the depths of the U.S financial crises to current deceleration of growth in major world economies, from fears of rising nominal interest rates domestically to actual real negative interest rates abroad, and let’s not even start on the most bizarre election cycles across developed markets in memory) we are benefitting from U.S. markets that seem to defy gravity’s full effect no matter the headlines. The U.S. economy appears in good shape overall following the slowdown in the first quarter (and the 11% decline in markets) that resulted largely from reduced corporate earnings during 2015. First quarter GDP growth was revised upward in May and continues to exceed inflation measures. Consumer spending (the main engine of the U.S. economy) continues to expand. Manufacturing reports indicate expansion, although still suggest soft growth in the sector. Real estate (including construction and construction spending) continues its upward trajectory. Job opportunities continue to grow (although a bit weaker mid-quarter) with the unemployment rate in the U.S. falling to 4.7%. Despite a few setbacks and a bit of volatility U.S. stocks were nicely positive for the second quarter, a welcome continuation of the rally from the mid-February lows.

Yes, on June 23rd voters in the U.K. elected to leave the European Union, to the surprise of basically everyone. Global markets reacted wildly with big drops in stocks the following two trading days. U.S. stock markets recovered strongly the next two trading days after that, making up much of the decline. Most major U.S. broad market indices now sit, post quarter-end, comfortably at new all-time highs. Foreign developed markets, and particularly the E.U. markets, have not yet fully recovered but have moved solidly higher. The chart below illustrates the difference between large- and mid-sized U.S. stocks (the MSCI USA Index of large- and mid-sized companies represented by the blue line) versus international stocks (the MSCI EAFE Index represented by the black line). The MSCI EAFE Index represents the performance of large- and mid-sized securities across 21 developed markets, including countries in Europe, Australasia and the Far East, but excludes the U.S. and Canada. The chart makes clear the impact of continued challenges in overseas markets from the Grexit fears of mid-2015, through the global growth fears related to China surrounding the 2016 new year, and to the latest impact of the Brexit vote. Versus the resiliency of the U.S. market, the past year in international markets was disappointing at a negative 12.7%, with a year-to-date return at June 30 for the EAFE Index of -6.3%. A continued rally since the end of the second quarter has cut the year-to-date loss to -3.9%, although effects from weaker foreign currencies continue to drag on a full price recovery.

International Equity versus U.S. Equity

Lake Jericho’s long-term portfolio construction process involves five distinct levels of strategic decision making. The first level in our process is the global allocation decision; how much of a portfolio should be invested in international markets versus invested in the U.S. market. Our long-term outlook for growth rates in international markets exceed that of our long-term outlook for U.S. growth. The higher growth expectation is why we invest significant assets in international markets. While our allocations are less than a global market-neutral allocation, they are higher than the typical U.S. based investment advisor. No doubt that the past year has been challenging as a result. However, bad times, as with good, don’t last forever. As the table below illustrates, one year’s laggard is often among the next year’s leaders. Mean-reversion is real and is why we remain committed to our total international allocation level within portfolios. These global investment decisions then inform asset allocation decisions amongst stocks, bonds, and alternative asset classes within U.S. or international markets (the second level of the strategic decision making process). If we make any changes during the second half of 2016, it would be to reallocate the geographic distribution of the international holdings rather than any reduction of the total international allocation.

Novel Investor Asset Class Returns TableSource: NovelInvestor.com

The S&P 500 Index returned 2.5% for the 2nd quarter, resulting in a year-to-date return through June 30 of 3.8%. Small- and mid-sized company stocks (represented by the Russell 2500 Index) fared even better with quarterly gains of 3.6% (for a year-to-date through June 30 return of 4.0%). Certainly, being invested in U.S. equities (particularly in large U.S. companies) has been most advantageous during the past year. The chart below compares the S&P 500 Index and the Russell 2500 for the past year. I draw your attention to two things; the outperformance of large companies versus smaller companies through the early months of 2016, and then to the reversal of that performance difference between during the last four months. You will see (by the slope of the two green lines) that during the second quarter small- and mid-sized companies narrowed that performance gap. These “size” decisions are another among the five levels of our portfolio construction process. Investment performance during the quarter was helped by our typical overweighting of small- and mid-sized companies versus a U.S. equity market-neutral portfolio.

Large Company Stocks versus Mid- and Small-Company Stocks

Company valuation metrics are another distinct level of our long-term decision making process. Company valuation categorization is a combination of quantitative measurements and qualitative art, referring to companies as value-oriented, growth-oriented, or core. In layperson’s terms, it boils down to “how expensive is the stock versus its earnings expectations”. Although Lake Jericho portfolios most often represent elements of each category, our long-term bias tilts towards value-oriented investments. Some refer to our style as “growth at a reasonable price”, a fair label as far as labels go. When examining the next chart one will see that value-oriented investment strategies (the red line) have underperformed both growth-oriented (the silver line) and core investments (the blue line) during 2015 and early 2016. This pattern reversed late during the first quarter and value strategies outperformed through the second quarter. Value-oriented strategies, which we do overweight versus a global market-neutral portfolio, now slightly lead both growth- and core-oriented strategies for the last year and have contributed positively to portfolio performance.

Value-Oriented Strategy

Bonds prices increased as interest rates fell for another quarter (interest rates and bond prices move in opposite directions). Over the last three months the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index (a broad measure of bond-market performance) was up 2.3%, 5.1% year-to-date, and is up 5.40% for the last year through June 30. We have maintained a more conservative position for clients than that represented by the Aggregate Index. Our bond positions remain invested at about a 2.7 year duration versus the Aggregate Index duration of about 5.5 years duration. The best way to think about duration and how it represents risk to bond investment performance is that should interest rates rise, a 2.7 year duration investment will be negatively affected by less than half of what the 5.5-year duration investment would be affected. The lower duration investments will not fall in price as dramatically as a longer duration investment when interest rates increase. With interest rates at historical lows, we feel that there is much more risk of interest rates rising in the U.S. than of rates continuing to fall. However, when interest rates fall the price of a short duration investment will not rise as dramatically as a longer duration investment. That is the trade off, and that is why our holdings returned about 1.5% for the 2nd quarter, 3.2% for the year-to-date, and about 3.8% for the year ending June 30.

By sending interest rates lower, the bond market could be anticipating economic weakness or simply conceding that the U.S. Federal Reserve will be challenged to increase rates in the face of rising global uncertainty, regardless of the state of the U.S. economy. Either way, ever lower bond yields bolster a continuing argument that increasing stock prices are now the result of a lack of viable return alternatives to stocks, known as TINA (“There Is No Alternative”). The TINA argument acknowledges that the S&P 500 Index dividend yield has hovered around 2% for about 10 years while the yields on U.S. Treasury notes have steadily declined. The chart below illustrates the movement in U.S. Treasury bonds over time versus the rather steady nature (green line) of average stock dividend yields. Many large U.S. company stocks now provide dividend yields in excess of the yield on their own 10-year corporate bonds, and certainly above 10-year Treasury bond yields. Granted, the principal risk is higher for stocks, but the trade-off is perceived as manageable for long-term investors. For these reasons, it is easy to understand why some argue that stock prices are being pushed higher simply by those seeking a steady income stream jumping into stocks from bonds. Bonds, with prices that move inversely to interest rates, have been moving ever higher as well and now look incredibly expensive by comparison to stocks. At Lake Jericho, our view is a bit more tempered. We believe both the lofty stock and bond prices in the U.S. are more of a function of the “flight to quality” that investors undertake during times of heightened uncertainty and less to do with stretching for yield. Patience, ever our watchword, reminds us that normalcy always returns. As such, we feel that we are best positioned by maintaining modest bond exposures in our client portfolios and that those modest exposures themselves are quite conservatively invested. If (or when) interest rates do turn higher, we are well positioned.

Treasury Yields versus Dividend Yield

Finally, tactical sector weighting is a fundamental element (the fifth level of decision making) of what we do and how we add value over time. Few portfolios will match all sector allocations, or sector allocation percentages exactly, or the timing of investments perfectly, and these factors certainly impact exact contribution to performance of our sector “bets”. However, our process of underweighting U.S. equity market-neutral benchmark allocations in favor of overweighting higher expected growth sectors (materials, medical devices and instruments, and pharmaceuticals) added about 0.40% in excess return to the typical client portfolio during the second quarter. Two sectors plays that have not performed as expected are our overweights to the consumer discretionary sector and our overweights in certain large and less risk-adverse portfolios to the genomics/biotechnology sector. While the consumer space has remained strong during this year’s volatility, that strength has not translated well into an increase in broad discretionary spending. While there are some signs of life beginning to emerge, discretionary spending has expanded much slower than we anticipated heading into 2016. The genomics/biotechnology sector has been hamstrung to a great extent by political rhetoric in the primary cycle. In fairness, there has been some concern about the pipelines for approval of new therapies but that shadow is beginning to fade and there now seems to be more merger and acquisition discussion in the space. We remain confident of a turn-around in the coming year. These two sectors served to reduce performance by about 0.20% during the second quarter.

So what does all of this mean for us going into the second half of 2016? More than 100 years ago American Financier and Banker J.P. Morgan said “No problem can be solved until it is reduced to some simple form. The changing of a vague difficulty into a specific, concrete form is a very essential element in thinking.” I think J.P. Morgan himself would agree that the essential element we need examine is global political stability and economic growth. I fear J.P. Morgan himself would agree that we have a deeper difficulty at the moment in our ability to examine global growth appropriately as we are faced with a unique challenge presently; increased ease and efficiency at doing the quantitative analysis required of us, but increased complexity and difficulty in the qualitative elements that influence our results. We have before us the statistical evidence supporting a forecast for broad expansion in the U.S. and international markets. We also have before us a great deal of political and social uncertainty, that which is impossible to quantify, that can undo all of the hard evidence and leave us flat for an extended period of time. Lake Jericho’s process is designed to capitalize most upon this latter prospect. While we fully expect to capture a great percentage of upside in rising markets, we are most adept at limiting downside risks during volatile times and through our tactical sector strategies capture value where ever it presents itself when opportunities are scarce. We are going to stay the course at least through the end of the third quarter. At that time we will re-evaluate the quantitative evidence before us and temper our outlook with the atmosphere (qualitative) that develops in advance of the U.S. elections. And of course, we will be continuously watching movements in the U.K., the E.U., and developments in Asia and the impacts upon client portfolios.

We are available at any time, any day of the week, to discuss specific portfolio and performance questions. Until then, be well and enjoy the rest of your weekend!

A.J. Walker CFP® CIMA®
Founder and Senior Consultant
Lake Jericho, LLC

1st Quarter 2016: Quarterly Recap and Near-term Outlook

Published date View more posts by authorAJ Walker

The thing about crafting a useful investment review at each quarter’s end? It is often the case that one will need to construct a coherent discussion of what were actually two (or more) very different markets. The 1st quarter of 2016 is a tale of two halves.

2015’s volatility continued into the 1st quarter of 2016 amid much fretting about a possible U.S. recession, a lack of global growth, and the collapse of oil and commodity prices. U.S. markets were as close to an actual bear market not seen since the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. The bears had a lot of ammunition to make their case. Weak economic data at home fueled speculation that the U.S. economic expansion was coming to an end. Chinese stocks were crashing and many feared Beijing’s debt-fueled economy would follow suit. The prices of oil and commodities were in free fall. Bank stocks were tanking from fears of potential defaults within their energy loan portfolios. The U.S. dollar continued to climb as global demand for U.S. denominated assets reached a new peak, delivering a hit to earnings of U.S. multinationals. Global markets turned turbulent and wildly volatile. The Bank of Japan pushed borrowing costs into negative territory for the first time. Adding to market fears, most on Wall Street feared the Federal Reserve would soon make a second hike of short-term interest rates, and was likely to make too many hikes in 2016.

The S&P 500 (a measure of the largest 500 U.S. companies) opened 2016 by falling 1.5% on the first trading day of the year. At the end of the first week of the year the S&P 500 was down 6.0%. And though the market bounced about the following weeks, the S&P 500 would find its bottom on February 11th with a 10% total decline for the quarter. Other sectors of the market would fare far worse. The Russell 2500 Index (a measure of small- and mid-cap U.S. company stock performance) was down 14.0% at the February 11th bottom. International equity markets, generally expected to provide some measure of diversification and shelter from U.S. market volatility, were also down sharply. As measured by the FTSE Ex-US Index (a comprehensive measure of non-U.S. publicly traded companies), international stocks were down about 11.0% at the February 11th bottom. At the peak of pessimism on February 11th the Dow Jones industrial average closed nearly 15.0% below its May, 2015 record high.

After hitting the panic button in the first half of the quarter, investors regained some composure mid-February. One by one, the fears and obstacles that had put the U.S. stock market on the brink of its first bear market in 7 years began to dissipate. In a sharp reversal of outlook, markets shrugged off global concerns and rallied aggressively through quarter-end. The S&P 500 finished +1.35% for the 1st quarter. The small- and mid-cap company Russell 2500 Index finished +0.3% for the 1st quarter. International equities as measured by the FTSE Ex-US Index finished the quarter lower by about 0.6%. Emerging market equities outpaced developed markets by about 2.3% finishing in positive territory for the 1st quarter.

Relative Performance: S&P 500 Index vs. Russell 2500 Index (Small- and Mid-Cap)
Relative Performance: S&P 500 Index vs. Russell 2500 Index (Small- and Mid-Cap).

Early during the first quarter any type of reversal seemed unlikely. So what happened? Arguably, the market simply was oversold and due a big bounce. While true, a bounce has to be kicked-off by some thing, or some group of things. This bounce got its kick largely from a recovery in energy and commodities prices, from a few bits of improved macroeconomic data, a steady hand by central banks both in the U.S. and abroad, and a weakening U.S. dollar.

  • Energy and Commodity Prices.

Without question, the most influential market variable in the past 15 months has been oil and commodity prices. While cheaper energy and lower commodity prices are good for the typical consumer in the long run, there exists a delay in the short run translation of those consumer benefits into meaningful economic impact. In the interim, the cyclical (business cycle change) and secular (permanent change) impact upon energy related companies (upstream or downstream), mining companies, heavy equipment manufacturers, transportation (railroads, shipping, trucking) companies, has been devastating to earnings. When earnings drop, stock prices drop. It was no surprise that continued weakness in oil and commodities during the 1st quarter translated directly to weakness in the stock market. And equally without surprise, was the turn higher in stock prices coincident with the turn in energy and commodity prices.

Q1 2016: Price Patterns of WTI and Materials.
Q1 2016: Price Patterns of WTI and Materials.

It is no coincidence that on the same day stocks bottomed that U.S.-produced oil (WTI) hit a 13-year low of $26.21 a barrel. When oil, which was down nearly 30% in 2016 and 80% from its high, stabilized, that lifted pressure off of energy and energy-related firms struggling to meet their operating income needs and to make debt related payments on time. Rising oil prices also relieved pressure in credit markets tied to the oil/energy complex. In reality, this was the turning point that sparked the market’s recovery.

Q1 2016: Price Relationship of WTI and S&P 500.
Q1 2016: Price Relationship of WTI and S&P 500.

Crossing the $40 p/barrel mark near quarter-end was a meaningful accomplishment as this level provides much relief to energy and energy-related companies. And while a $45 p/barrel mark is widely considered an industry average breakeven price, to cling to the $40 mark in the near-term is an important support level. We shall see if anticipated OPEC production cuts later during 2016 actually occur. IF they come to an agreement, and IF they abide by that agreement, then a meaningful move higher in the price p/barrel could occur in the summer and fall of this year. A price in the neighborhood of $50 p/barrel would likely soothe the markets. A price anywhere close to $70 p/barrel and we will then likely start talking about oil as getting “expensive” again.

  • Economic Factors.

The start of 2016 was plagued by concerns that the U.S. (if not the globe) was heading into recession. The reported upward trend in initial jobless claims caused immediate concern. Historically, initial jobless claims have tended to trough several months before unemployment starts to rise. This triggered fears that the steady fall in the unemployment rate that has supported the 7-year recovery could be coming to an end. Revisiting last quarter’s discussion of the math behind stock prices, we know that even small changes in long-run growth expectations will have a large impact on current stock prices.

However, initial jobless claims are naturally more volatile than the longer-term unemployment rate and often give false warning signs. Since mid-February, the trend in initial jobless claims improved, calming market fears about the U.S. labor market. Considering some positive news from the Household Labor Force Survey, and strong job openings data, stock prices began their lift-off in the second half of the 1st quarter.

Another source of concern at the start of the year was the continued weakness in U.S. manufacturing. While not a robust measure of hard data, The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Manufacturing Survey is a widely followed report and can be useful for quick signals on economic activity. The ISM reported survey data in both January and February signaling a contraction in manufacturing underway since the latter part of 2015. More recently, the index data has bounced back into positive territory (indicating an expansion of manufacturing), and the Regional Manufacturing Surveys have also shown some signs of improvement.

While manufacturing accounts for 14.0% of U.S. GDP, the non-manufacturing component of the Survey (the services sector of our economy) is a more influential element at about 77.0% of GDP depending upon the measurement. While the non-manufacturing index data remains positive (continues to indicate expansion) service sector rate of growth has been slowing for 5 moths, and it will be important to watch this data-point closely in the months ahead.

Releases from major economies around the globe mirrored similarly weak fundamentals as the U.S. and fueled similar concerns throughout foreign markets. Central banks in those markets (the E.U., Japan, and China most notably) were forced to intervene in much more direct fashion.

Nonetheless, the U.S. economy is on more solid ground than thought as we opened 2016. While we will likely have another quarter or two of softness, including some revisions downward of these and similar numbers, our view is that we are simply experiencing a slowing of the rate of growth in the near term rather than a reversal towards recession.

  • Central Bank Actions.

Looking back through my daily notes for the 1st quarter, it appears that the seeds for the dramatic rebound were planted on January 27th. That is the day the Federal Reserve’s FOMC surprised markets by not hiking interest rates again immediately on the heels of the December hike. The markets were bouncing about in a range-bound fashion waiting for any signal that could provide direction for the next trading leg. Although the FOMC’s restraint did not immediately break us from the range-bound trade, the minutes from that FOMC meeting did send notice that the members were paying close attention to concerns at home, and to the mounting risks abroad. The Fed’s soothing words helped when they indicated that the pace of future interest rate increases would be affected by international events. Those seeds planted on January 27th sprung forth in the evening of February 11th in a confluence of events that signaled the change in direction.

Between the January 27th meeting and the market bottom on February 11th, there were signals that the market was in bottoming mode. Energy prices had slowed their free fall, and the number of stocks hitting fresh 52-week lows was no longer expanding. That latter statistic is a meaningful measure for most technicians. On February 11th, America’s unofficial central banker, JPMorgan/Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, cast a vote of confidence for his beaten down bank’s shares, and the stock market as a whole, when he put up more than $25 million of his own wealth to buy an additional 500,000 shares of JPMorgan stock. While not the “cause” of the turnabout, a lot of credit is given to Jamie Dimon with turning investor sentiment.

In the weeks that followed, the stock market got another boost from additional stimulus measures from the European Central Bank, steps by China to steady its economy and wild currency swings, solid economic data in the U.S. allaying recession fears, and a sharp rally in distressed assets powered by bearish investors reversing their negative bets. Fed Chair Janet Yellen added to the bullish tone and turnaround late in the quarter when in mid-March the FOMC dialed back its plans for interest rate hikes planned for 2016 from four to two.

In the bond markets, once the fear of rapidly rising interest rates abated, both government and corporate bond price indices moved to the upside. The 10-year Treasury yield fell from 2.27% at the end of December to 1.77% by the end of March (bond prices and bond yields move in opposite directions). The Barclay’s Aggregate Bond Index (a broad measure of intermediate terms fixed income investments) returned 3.03% for the quarter. We were not willing to take the risk that the FOMC would pause in its move towards higher rates. We have taken a more conservative position with our bond allocations for clients, choosing to remain invested at about a 2-year duration. A shorter duration investment (2-year) will not fall in price as dramatically as a longer duration (10-year) investment when interest rates increase. However, when interest rates fall the price of a short duration investment will not rise as dramatically as a longer duration investment. This is why our holdings returned about 1.6% for the 1st quarter.

Q1 2016: 10-Year Treasury Yield vs. 2-Year Treasury Yield.
Q1 2016: 10-Year Treasury Yield vs. 2-Year Treasury Yield.
  • Currency Impacts.

As we discussed in last quarter’s review, a strong dollar is good for U.S. consumers (we can buy more stuff from other countries), but not so good for U.S. businesses (they can not sell as much of their stuff to other countries). So while the consumer-based parts of our economy are helped, U.S. businesses that generate significant earnings abroad are hurt. Additionally, the translation effect on those foreign earnings mean that those U.S. companies lose when exchanging those earnings back into U.S. dollars (those foreign currencies can’t buy as many dollars). As with last quarter, the U.S. dollar is too expensive. But it did get a little cheaper during the last half of the 1st quarter.

With a cheaper U.S. dollar, when a U.S. business generates earnings in foreign markets, and those earnings are converted back into U.S. dollars for financial reporting and tax purposes, they simply get more U.S. dollars in the exchange. When the value of the U.S. dollar is lower relative to foreign currencies, those foreign earnings, simply by exchanging them back into U.S. dollars, are suddenly worth more. U.S. companies keep more of what they earn overseas, their earnings increase and stock prices increase. It is a virtuous cycle, but one that is easily upset and can take many years to equilibrate.

Q1 2016: U.S. Dollar Index.
Q1 2016: U.S. Dollar Index.

As always, we are keeping our eyes on all of the moving pieces across the globe and across markets. While much of 2015 and the first few weeks of 2016 did not favor some of our portfolio biases, most of our biases contributed solidly to client returns in the post-February 11th recovery.

  • Our overweighting of small-cap (+2.63%), mid-cap earnings (+3.65%), and mid-cap value (+1.73%) company indexes contributed nicely to excess return versus the S&P 500 during the 1st quarter.
  • Our overweighting of the materials sector (+4.64%), and the consumer discretionary sector (+1.61) contributed positively to excess returns versus the S&P 500 during the 1st quarter.
  • Healthcare represents one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. It is pervasive throughout every size and style category and encompasses an unimaginable breadth of related businesses. There are parts of the healthcare sector that we like very much, and some parts that we don’t like. During the 1st quarter the healthcare sector underperformed all other sectors with a loss of -5.90%. In our portfolios we create an effective underweighting of the general healthcare sector by creating overweights to specific sub-sectors within the healthcare sector. For example, we overweight medical devices and medical technology companies. Devices and technology returned +0.04% during the 1st quarter, below the 1.3% return for the S&P 500 but far better than the -5.90% for the general healthcare sector.While many of our biases contributed nicely to excess returns during the past quarter, there were a few biases that did create a drag on quarterly returns.
  • Continuing the healthcare sector discussion, in our large, growth oriented portfolios we also overweight biotechnology/genomics companies (-24.2%), and pharmaceuticals (-14.1%). While we maintain our conviction that these are fruitful areas for long-term growth, they are also more volatile than most sectors of the market and react more harshly to growth-related fears. As such, these sectors were among the most beaten down during the 1st quarter. And while one would expect that they also be among the quickest to recover, political pressures associated with the Presidential election cycle have influenced the sector in ways that are unrelated to fundamentals. We believe time and patience are the watchwords in these spaces.
  • All of our portfolios have large allocations to international markets, both international equities and international bonds. During the 1st quarter our method of executing comprehensive international exposure returned approximately -1.4%. We feel pretty good about this number actually when compared to many of the major markets across the globe. For example, the MSCI EMU (a representation of the 10 Developed European Monetary Union countries) returned -6.6% for the first quarter.We remain committed to our strategies for the long haul and see no reason to undertake any significant changes. We have, however, adjusted some of our sector performance expectations and in response will be making small changes in some allocations as opportunities present themselves during the 2nd quarter. Should significant events unfold you can be certain that we will provide updates as needed and advance notice of any significant deviations in portfolio strategy should market forces warrant them. We are available at any time, any day of the week, to discuss specific portfolio and performance questions. Until then, be well and enjoy the rest of your weekend!

A.J. Walker CFP® CIMA®
Founder and Senior Consultant
Lake Jericho, LLC