Shaping a portfolio for 2014 (i): a look back at 2013

my take this time last year 

A few minutes ago I looked back at what I wrote in the “Putting the Pieces Together” section of my Strategy last year.

I was pretty accurate on the macroeconomic front, with my guess about how S&P 500 earnings would turn out being  a tad high.  But that’s typical optimistic me.  The stocks in the index now appear to be earning at around a $102 per share annual rate, which is a mere 5% better than twelve months ago.

From that analysis, I concluded that 2013 would be a good year for stocks–but that gains would probably fall short of +10%.

What I didn’t factor in was multiple expansion–the dissipation of the all-pervasive fear of risk that had gripped Wall Street during the stock meltdown of 2008-09, and the return of a soupçon of greed to the investor psyche.  I assumed (read: hoped and prayed) that this would happen eventually.  But I saw no reason to predict the timing of this sea change.  Better just to remain fully invested and therefore be there when liftoff happened.

Calling what happened in 2013 a pinch less risk aversion is probably an understatement.  A 5% increase in earnings per share–with perhaps another +8% in store for 2014–has yielded just shy of +30% (including dividends) so far in 2013 for the S&P.

the plusses for 2013

The biggest story line by far for 2013 has been the just-mentioned return of the market discounting mechanism to more or less normal after four years of extreme risk aversion.  But it wasn’t the only one.

Others include:

–the continuing resilience of the US economy despite periodic scares from Washington policy,

–the EU economy finally navigating the worst of the Great Recession and beginning to show the first signs of renewed growth,

–the amazing upward surge of the Japanese stock market on the hope that severe currency devaluation would deliver sustained real economic growth for the first time in a quarter-century, and

–the gradual reacceleration of the Chinese economic engine as the new administration has taken a firm hand on the controls.

good news, bad news

All these factors are good news, in that they indicate the world economy is on far firmer footing today than it was a year ago.  The bad news (for investors) about this is that all of these plusses are already in plain sight and already fully (in my view) factored into today’s stock prices.

What’s left, then, to go for in 2014?

…not a similar gain to the +30% that 2013 has produced.  Instead, my best guess is that we’ll have the kind of sedate +7% -+8% advance for the S&P that I envisioned for 2013.

If so, outperformance will hinge critically on good sector and individual stock selection.

More tomorrow.

Basel III and trade finance

A heated lobbying effort is underway to change the way that the new comprehensive banking regulations, known as Basel II, propose to deal with trade finance.  It’s being led by Asia-centric banks like Standard Chartered and HSBC, for whom this sort of relatively low-risk lending has been a staple for a long time.

Under present rules, banks have to provide reserves against trade credit advanced to customers that are equal to 20% of the outstanding amount.  Basel III proposes to up that to 100%.

This is an important issue.  Globalization and the resulting growth in trade have been main pillars of the increase in worldwide prosperity of the past several decades.  Standard Chartered says the new rules, if implemented in their present form, would depress world trade by 2%, and clip a half-percent from global GDP.  Presumably things would be considerably worse for HSBC and Standard Chartered.

how trade credit works

Let’s say Very Big Department Store of San Francisco orders 50,000 pairs of blue jeans at $5 each from Great Wall Blue Jeans of Shanghai.

When the contract is signed, Great Wall asks Very Big to have VB’s bank send a letter of credit to GW’s bank, the Hong Kong branch of the Bank of China.  VB goes to its bank, Bank of America, to have BA issue the letter.

The letter is normally irrevocable.  In it, BA tells the Bank of China to pay GW $250,000 when GW presents proof specified in the letter–usually a bill of lading from the shipping company handling transport of the order–that the order is complete and the goods are under way.  BA also promises to reimburse GW immediately.

Based on the signed contract or on the letter of credit, Bank of China will most likely be willing to make a working capital loan to Great Wall, if needed, to finance the manufacture of the jeans.

So, BA and BC both collect fees associated with the letter of credit.  Both may also make working capital loans to their customers, to finance, respectively, the purchasing and the making of the jeans.  The banks’ risk exposure is of short duration.  Assuming that both Great Wall and Very Big are well-known customers, the chance of anything going wrong with the transaction is remote.  This is plain vanilla, everyday low-risk business (other than at times of historically high stress, like the recent financial crisis, when this business completely dried up).  But it’s also very profitable.

my thoughts

It seems to me that the Basel III rules have to change.  But it’s something to keep an eye on.  The obvious losers were the proposed rules to stay as they are now are the trade finance-oriented banks.  But I don’t think this is the main issue.  If China or Brazil go from 8% growth to 7.5%, no one will really notice.  But neither the US nor (especially) the EU are likely to have enough extra economic energy that they can shrug off the loss of .5% in expansion.