S&P downgrade of US sovereign debt: investment implications

what S&P said

After the stock market close in New York last Friday, Standard and Poors’ Ratings Direct issued a research report in which it downgraded the long-term credit rating of the United States from AAA to AA+, with a negative outlook.

According to S&P, “negative outlook” means that there’s at least one chance in three that it will downgrade the US further within the next two years.

Short-term paper remains unaffected, with a A-1+ rating.

its reasoning

Two main factors:

–the rising public debt, and

–the fact that “elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues” in a way that AAA countries are expected to do (which I read as meaning that S&P regards government in Washington as a bunch of wannabe ballplayers wearing big-league uniforms and demanding big-league perks but who can’t hit the ball out of the infield ).

Apparently, the performance of all parties to the debt ceiling debacle was enough to make S&P revise down the opinion it formed in April.

who doesn’t know this already?

I think it would be hard to find any professional fixed income investor who isn’t aware the US has a debt problem.  In fact, over my thirty+ years watching the stock market, conventional wisdom (and actual experience) has always been that the rating agency opinions are lagging indicators of financial health.  To my mind, one of the crazier aspects of the sub-prime mortgage bubble is that professionals actually claimed they relied on the ratings, rather than doing analysis themselves–kind of like depending on last year’s calendar to tell you the day of the week.

As Casey Stengel would have commented, ” You could Google it.”   In round numbers, Washington has $2.5 trillion in annual income but spends $4 trillion.  Outstanding federal debt is already over $14.3 trillion, or about six years’ worth of gross income.  And that doesn’t count $40+ trillion in the present value of retirement and medical care promises Washington has made but hasn’t set aside the money for.

investment implications

short-term

There may be a day or two–if that–of negative reaction in both stocks and bonds to having the S&P shoe finally drop.  Otherwise, in the short term, I think there are no negative consequences.

Two other ratings agencies, Moodys and Fitch, have already reaffirmed their AAA rating of US sovereign debt.  So it’s unlikely that any large investor has a contract that will force it to sell Treasuries.

Besides, where else is there the same combination of liquidity and relative safety that still exists in Treasuries  …Japan?   …Italy?    I don’t think so.

In addition, as I mentioned above, this is scarcely a surprise.

longer-term

This is much harder to handicap.

On the one hand, the downgrade will doubtless cause China to increase its efforts to create a substitute for the dollar as the global reserve currency.  As Xinhua, the Chinese news agency puts it, “The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone.”  In the same article, Xinhua also calls for international supervision of the issuance of dollar obligations, and the establishment of a substitute world reserve currency.

On the other,  Americans’ opinion of Congress is at an all-time (meaning since the Seventies) low, with 82% rating legislators unfavorably.  The New York Times, a Democratic bastion, just ran an op-ed piece arguing the country would be better off with Richard Nixon as president than Barack Obama.

It’s at least possible that the embarrassment of a national credit downgrade after 70 years of AAA will sharpen political debate and influence the next national election–coming in November 2012.  The groundswell appears to me to be already taking form.  If so, the public outcry may well influence, in a favorable way, the recommendations of the congressional committee being established to make budget-balancing recommendations as part of the debt ceiling deal.

Who knows.

I also think this event brings us closer–both in time and value–to a buying opportunity in world markets.  Today will be an interesting day to watch closely.

the July 2001 Employment Situation report

the July Employment Situation

the report

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly Employment Situation last Friday, before the start of stock trading in New York.  The report shows the economy added 117,000 new jobs last month, up from the surprisingly low figure of 18,000 new positions tallied in May.

Interest in the report was great enough that the BLS site that publishes it crashed under the weight of the large number of eager clicks.

revisions to prior data

As you probably know, the  monthly “establishment” data that make up  the new jobs figures in the Employment Situation report are revised twice, once each in the two months after their initial announcement. That’s because the firms whose information makes up the report don’t all send it to the BLS in a timely way.

May revisions were negative, reinforcing the gloomy news from the headline number.  June revisions, on the other hand, are positive. 

May employment gains were first reported as +54,000 jobs.  That figure was revised down to +25,000 in the June report, but revised up again to +53,000 this month.  The June figures were upped as well–to +46,000.  Neither change is earth-shattering.  But one of the discouraging aspects of the June report was that not only was the current-month number an ugly one, the revisions were–contrary to our experience for most of the recovery–pointing in a negative direction, as well.  That tendency may be reversing.  We’ll have potentially confirming data next month.

private sector job creation isn’t that bad

True, the figures for the private sector haven’t attained the post recovery highs of earlier this year, when monthly gains were coming in at 200,000+ jobs.  But the (final) results for private sector job additions in May are +99,000 positions, the (one-more-revision-coming) figures for June are +80,000.  The initial tally for Jul is +154,000.

Given the supply chain disruptions after the Fukushima earthquake/tsunamis in Japan and the almost palpable fear during the past couple of months that Washington’s callous power jockeying over the debt ceiling would inflict serious harm on the economy, it’s surprising that businesses hired anyone at all–let alone 50% more people than industry added at this time last year.

governments continue to shed labor

No surprise here, since state and local governments have been struggling for a long while to balance their budgets.

The government job figures in the July report for the months of May-July are -46,000, -34,000 and -37,000.  The May number was originally reported as -29,000; the June one hasn’t changed that much from the original -39,000.  I don’t see a pattern to the revisions that I’d care to bet the farm on, but, if anything, there’s been a mild tendency for them to drift further into the negative column by the time the adjustment period is over.

long-term unemployment continues to be a problem

Again, not new news, although it has become a focus of recent media comment.  This part of the ES report continues to show that the US economy is making almost no progress in whittling down the number of potential workers hurt by recession (unemployed + discouraged workers + involuntary part-timers).  That figure has only dropped from 16.5% of the workforce to 16.1% since last July.

What’s new, I think, is the debate over the debt ceiling.   That made it more apparent that:

–unemployment is nowhere on the radar screens of Washington insiders of all stripes–Democrat or Republican, elected or appointed, and

–Washington has the potential to do a great deal of harm to the economy as actors on both sides of the aisle elbow for electoral advantage.

stock market implications

I see this as a mildly positive Employment Situation report.

It underlines the fact that, although recovery is slow, it is happening.  The 85% or so of the workforce that have jobs are working more, and at higher pay, than a year ago.  At the same time, each monthly report makes it clearer, I think, that the US has a serious structural unemployment problem à la 1980s Europe than we care to recognize.  (What the country needs to do is clear:  financial support and retraining for the unemployed, better education.  Not on Washington’s agenda, though.)

Among other indicators, recent retail sales reflect this fact.  Mid-market and upscale retailers continue to do well; those that focus on below-average earners continue to struggle.

This is a serious social/political problem.  But, taking off my hat as a human being and donning my hat as an investor, I don;t think it needs to be a stock market one.  From an equity strategy point of view, I think today’s situation implies a continuing focus on global firms and on those domestic companies that cater to more affluent customers.

 

 

making sense–if there is any–out of the stock market selloff

the situation

On Wednesday, and to a greater degree on Thursday, world stock markets declined sharply, across the board, in a selloff that has more than a whiff of panic about it. 

The trigger for the downward move is worry about EU banks.  As the Greek crisis drags on without resolution, interbank liquidity in the EU has been gradually drying up.  Everyone figures that banks will eventually have to write down part the value of the Greek government bonds they hold.  No financial institution wants to be caught, when the writedowns occur, having lent even short-term money to any bank whose credit rating becomes impaired in the process.

On this side of the Atlantic, Washington’s fear-mongering about the possibility of government default has caused companies to stop hiring, and consumers to stop spending for the moment.  It has also created enough anxiety that money market funds here, worried about possible redemptions, have withdrawn their financing from EU banks in recent weeks as well.  That has made an awkward EU situation worse.

All this has conjured up fears in Europe of a mini-Lehman event there.  As every investor recalls very vividly, the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008 brought global trade finance to a screeching halt, paralyzing economic activity for a number of months and producing massive corporate layoffs in response. 

Hence the selloff.

is this rational?  is this likely?

My answer is “no” to both.  Is it thinkable?  Yes.  And that’s enough for a market that’s feeding on negative emotion to use as a rationale for decline.  It also doesn’t help either that this is August, when most senior European portfolio managers are on vacation–and, strangely, to my mind, apparently incommunicado.

there are problems

The US and EU are facing a serious economic problem.  Growth is barely above zero and will likely not be much better in the near future (in other words, things will eventually improve, but I have no idea when).  That’s mostly necessary healing in the wake of the housing/financial crisis.  But a coterie of politicians bred to run for office but with no clue about what to do once elected is not helping, either.

It’s also worrying that governments in developed countries have already used up most of the growth-inducing weapons in their arsenals, leaving them vulnerable to new external shocks.On the other hand, this is not new news.

what to do

To my mind, there is a strong positive case for stocks.  It doesn’t depend on accelerating economic growth, although it does assume we don’t go into a serious tailspin.

My argument is that:

–emerging market will remain strong, and

–we can separate overall lackluster growth into two parts:  say, 85% of the workforce that is doing increasingly well, and 15% (up from 5% in a “full employment” economy, that isn’t.

Since publicly traded equities, especially in the US, are overwhelmingly focused on more affluent consumers and on emerging markets, we should be able to find strong money-making stocks, even if economic growth is lackluster and the overall market drifts.

I think the negative emotion expressed in the current selling is so large that it won’t disappear in a day.  So I think it’s better to wait to see the market stabilize than to “catch a falling knife,” as they say in the UK, and add to equity exposure on the way down.

At the same time, since the selling seems to me to have been indiscriminate, don’t be afraid to upgrade your portfolio by getting rid of stocks that have mostly exposure to broad economic activity in the domestic market, and replacing them with stocks that have emerging markets profit exposure and an up-market consumer (not industrial) clientele at home.

More on this in the next few days.


Macau gambling: July 2011 results; longer-term outlook

July 2011 results

For Macau, it was business as usual in July–another huge, and surprisingly strong,  year on year increase in casino win from gamblers in the SAR.  Here are the numbers from the Macau Gaming Coordination and Inspection Bureau:

* 1 HKD = 1.03MOP (Unit:MOP million )
Monthly Gross Revenue from Games of Fortune in 2011 and 2010
Monthly Gross Revenue Accumulated Gross Revenue
2011 2010 Variance 2011 2010 Variance
Jan 18,571 13,937 +33.2% 18,571 13,937 +33.2%
Feb 19,863 13,445 +47.7% 38,434 27,383 +40.4%
Mar 20,087 13,569 +48.0% 58,521 40,951 +42.9%
Apr 20,507 14,186 +44.6% 79,028 55,137 +43.3%
May 24,306 17,075 +42.4% 103,334 72,211 +43.1%
Jun 20,792 13,642 +52.4% 124,126 85,853 +44.6%
Jul 24,212 16,310 +48.4% 148,337 102,163 +45.2%

source: Macau Gaming Coordination and Inspection Bureau

To me, the interesting thing about these figures is that the year on year market gains seem to be accelerating over the past two months.  Hong Kong investors, however, continue to fret about the possibility that withdrawal, underway for a considerable time already, of the countercyclical stimulus Beijing applied during the financial crisis in the West will stunt growth in Macau.

Macau Business magazine indicates, for what it’s worth, that Galaxy Entertainment continues to gain market share, as gamblers visit its recently opened Galaxy Macau casino in Cotai.  Wynn Macau also appears to have been a relative winner.

the longer term

The most attractive aspect of the casino business for me as an investor is that it is relatively simple to analyze.  Revenue growth under normal circumstances is a function of two variables:

–the growth in the amount of floor space in the market and

–the growth of nominal GDP ( or nominal disposable income, if you prefer) in the area the casinos’ customers come from.

The very strong market growth numbers in Macau indicate that conditions there aren’t “normal.”  There’s still a substantial imbalance between the potential demand for gambling from China as a whole and the supply of casino space in Macau.  Network effects are still at work increasing the number of gamblers able to afford a trip to Macau who want to go.  Transport and border control bottlenecks still exist.  Rapid economic expansion is also swelling the ranks of those who can afford Macau.  I think we have at least several more years of this.

What happens when the imbalance is gone?  Well, the main thing is that the 40%-50% growth rates disappear as well.  From that point on, market growth becomes mostly a function of nominal GDP expansion.  For China, that probably means 8% real growth plus 4% inflation, or about 12% annual growth in revenues.  Operating leverage means that a 12% revenue increase will translate into 18% profit growth.  In addition, the market will likely split into relative winners and relative losers.  The former will grow profits at 20%, the latter at 15%.

It strikes me that the Hong Kong-listed casino companies are all currently priced as if the low end of the range will emerge as the norm almost immediately.  I think that’s highly unlikely.

 

 

I’ve just updated Current Market Tactics

I’ve just updated Current Market Tactics.   If you’re on the blog, you can also click the tab at the top of the page.