
most of an email from Wednesday night

Over the weekend Governor Cuomo of New York said that new coronavirus hospitalizations (that is new patients admitted minus patients discharged) may be plateauing. Similar news came from Italy and Spain this morning.
While this doesn’t imply that more negative consequences of the pandemic won’t continue to build up, it suggests that the doomsday scenario of the creaky national health care apparatus imploding won’t occur.
Wall Street took this news as the occasion for a rally, which continues to strengthen as I write this. (Is the worst in stock market terms over? ,,,I have no idea.)
A day like this is chock full of information, most of it general concept stuff rather than specific buy/sell signals.
Stocks are up by 5% plus. One should expect that the most heavily beaten down stocks should be rebounding the most and that the relative outperformers should be lagging. No news there. But where are the outliers? For example:
–hotels and resorts seem to be up close to 15%, cruise lines, too, but airlines aren’t moving
–the Russell 2000 is leading the major indices up, but even though the NASDAQ has significantly outperformed on the way down, it’s even with the S&P 500 so far today
–Zoom (ZM) continues to play its contrary role–the worse the virus news, the better ZM has been performing. But the stock is down today, and way off its high of $160+ a short while ago. I haven’t paid much attention to ZM but it seems to me a holder (I was one but no longer) should be figuring out how much valuation support there is for it
–oils are flat to down, despite Mr. Trump’s (dubious, in my mind) claim to have brokered a production reduction deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia (more on this tomorrow)
What to do? I look for two things: individual holdings that aren’t acting the way I think they should, and changes in market leadership, which often come when the market begins to heal itself after a sharp decline.
talking directly with customers
Before the financial crisis, equity portfolio managers rarely talked directly with retail customers. The central marketing concept was to create “third-party endorsements” by appearing on financial television programs. Oddly, in my view, but I’m confident it’s correct, retail clients were more powerfully convinced to invest by a portfolio manager’s appearance on CNBC than by a fundamentally sound approach, a strong analytic staff and a long record of outperformance,
That strategy no longer works. I’m not sure about the dynamics, but in today’s world the talking heads fancy themselves to be the real experts, even though few if any have ever been professional investors and they all by and large spout nonsense as far as I can see–entertaining nonsense, but still nonsense.
What I find interesting about the current market decline is that I’m seeing mutual fund and ETF providers conducting online presentations/client meetings with their fund holders. I think this makes a lot of sense. It may turn out to be one of the (many, I think) fundamental business changes that occur as a result of our current unusual circumstances.
reading stock prices
When I started my second job as a portfolio manager, Australia was the area I was responsible for. Every morning my boss would call me into her office and grill me about the course of the market overnight. She would say a ticker symbol. I had to tell her the high/low/close; the volume if it was unusual; the brokers (and clients, if possible) most involved; and whether or not the movement was in line with other names in the relevant industry or not. If not, why not.
It was pretty awful. And the practice lasted until I knew more than she did about what was going on. But I learned a valuable lesson–that many times the prices talk.
The US market is big enough that no one can listen to all the prices. But I think there are times when the prices are unusually informative. This is one of them, in my view. What I see is that the market is trying to separate post-pandemic winners from losers. My read is that weak stocks now are expressing the market’s first pass at what will continue to be weak from here on.
market cliché of the day
The cliché: when the market recovers from a serious decline, the old leadership is left by the wayside and new leadership emerges.
The “old” leadership is multinational firms without extensive manufacturing located in the US, tech and especially software, in particular.
Will this happen now? My guess is no.
double bottom?
That’s the way it usually works. The market bottoms the first time (the consensus seems to be forming that that’s what’s happening now) at the time of the utmost bad news. It then rises for six weeks or so …before returning to “confirm” the bottom by touching the former low, or maybe a tad lower, before motoring ahead for good.
I’ve written about this process now and again, including just recently. But I’ve heard and read so many predictions of a double bottom–“don’t buy now, wait for the second bottom”–that I’m beginning to think that won’t happen this time. I have no idea, though, what might take its place.
Despite its media ubiquity and the fact it has survived all these years, the DJI is a weird index:
–it contains only 30 names out of the thousands of publicly traded companies
–although the index owners have tried to make it more relevant in recent years by adding Apple, Microsoft and Nike, it still by and large represents the big-cap names of America’s yesterday
–the weighting of a given name is a function of its per share stock price, not the size of the company. As a result, Microsoft counts less than Visa, despite being 3x V’s size. MSFT is about 1200% the size of IBM, but has only a third more weight (stock price of 150 vs 110). While the ease of calculation this brings might have been important in the pre-computer age, it’s an anachronism now
–because of all this, using the DJI is a convenient signal to the listener that a speaker knows very little about stocks. Odd that it should be used by media stock “experts” …or maybe not.
Pre-APPL, MSFT, NKE, the DJI did have one important use. When it started to outperform, that meant that a rally was near its end (and portfolio managers were buying the least interesting, but cheapest stocks) or that pms were seeking the safety of large, mature companies. The additions above have lessened that appeal.
However, in the current climate, the DJI is an interesting collection of coronavirus losers.
Year-to-date, as of the close on Monday, the Dow was down by 35%, the S&P 500 by 30%, NASDAQ by 24%. Since then, the DJI has been by far the best performer. Interestingly, the Russell 2000, which measures mid-cap US, was down by 40% on Monday and has bounced by about 8% since, tying it with the NASDAQ for smallest bounce.
Two days isn’t much to go on, but one read is the market thinks the bailout will mostly benefit the large old-guard industrials. A caveat: the 57% rise in Boeing over the past two days accounts for two percentage points of the DJI rise.
Today’s US stock market has, at least as I’m writing this at 11AM, a much different tone than yesterday’s. Yes, it may be disappointing that there hasn’t been a bigger bounce so far back from yesterday’s mauling. But at least there seems to me to be a lot more selectivity to what’s being bought and sold. The losers appear to be companies directly affected by the consumer quarantine, the winners the least consumer-facing.
A second pattern continues, though, that trading is being driven, among the losers at least, by reaction to media headlines rather than investor forethought.
For me, one of the more puzzling aspects of the US market throughout my professional career has been the fact that virtually no institutional money managers ever beat their benchmark index. If, ex broker fees and commissions, investing is a zero sum game, there must be winners (who don’t disclose their results) to offset the highly visible losers. It could be that the fees and commissions are the reason, but the extent of the professional losses seems to me to be too high. This leaves private individuals.
I mention this because the reports I’ve read indicate individuals are buying as institutions are forced to sell to meet investor withdrawals.