Tagged: Sentiment

Surly Furious

Surly Furious would be a great name for a rock band. And maybe it describes stocks.  It’s for certain the name of a great Minnesota beer.

We are in Minneapolis, one of our favorite cities, where Midwest client services Director Perry Grueber lives, and where nature sprays and freezes into the artful marvel of Minnehaha Falls, and where over pints of Furious IPA from Surly Brewing we deconstructed investor-relations into late evening.

It got us thinking. ModernIR launched Sector Insights this week to measure how money behaves by sector. The data we track show all sectors topping save Consumer Staples.

“Wait, topped? The market has been declining.”

We’re not surprised that closing prices are reverting to the mean, the average, after big swings. You need to understand, public companies and investors, that the market isn’t motivated by your interests.

It’s driven by profit opportunity in the difference in prices between this group of securities or that, over this period or that.

How do we know?  Because it’s what market rules and investment objectives promote. Prices in stocks are set by the best bid to buy or offer to sell – which can never be the same – and motivated most times not by effort to buy or sell stocks but instead by how the price will change.

Who cares?  You should, investors and public companies.

Suppose I told you that in this hotel where you’re staying the elevator only goes to the 5th floor.  You decide it’s immaterial and you set out to reach the 6th floor. You lead your board of directors and executives to believe it should be their expectation that they can reach the 5th floor. Yet as you arrive at the elevator you learn it goes only to the 4th floor.

Whose fault is that?

The beer that put Minneapolis on the map is from Surly Brewing, an India Pale Ale called Furious. What’s better in a name than Surly Furious?  It’s worth drinking.

When the market is surly and furious, you should know it. We can see it first in Market Structure Reports (we can run them for any company), and then in Sector Insights (just out Dec 10) and in the broad market.

Number one question: How does it change what I do?  Investors, it’s easy. Don’t buy Overbought sectors or markets. Don’t sell Oversold sector or markets, no matter how surly and furious they may seem.

Public companies, we expend immense effort and dollars informing investors. Data suggest disclosure costs exceed $5 billion annually for US public companies.

If we discovered the wind blows only from the west, why would we try to sail west? If we discover passive investors are attracting 100% of net new investor inflows, and investors don’t buy or sell your stock, should you not ask what the purpose is of all the money you’re spending to inform investors who never materialize?

We can fear the question and call it surly, or furious. Or we can take the data – which we offer via Market Structure Reports and Sector Insights – and face it and use it to change investor expectations.

Which would you prefer? We’ve now released Sector Reports. If you’d like to know what Sentiment indicates for your stock, your sector — or the broad market — ask us.

Counterparty Tuesday

Anybody hear yesterday’s volatility blamed on Counterparty Tuesday?

Most pointed to earnings fears for why blue chips fell 500 points before clawing back.  Yet last week the Dow Jones Industrial Average zoomed 540 points on earnings, we were told.  We wrote about it.

Counterparty Tuesday is the day each month following expiration of the previous month’s derivatives contracts like puts, calls, swaps, forwards (usually the preceding Friday), and the start of new marketwide derivatives contracts the following Monday.

When grocery stores overstock the shelves, things go on sale.  When counterparties expect a volume of business that doesn’t materialize, they shed the inventory held to back contracts, which can be equities.

Counterparty Tuesday is a gauge indicating whether the massive derivatives market – the Bank for International Settlements tracks over $530 trillion, ten times the global economy – is overstocked or understocked. It’s much larger than the underlying volume of Active Investment behavior in the US stock market.

Let me use a sports analogy. Suppose your favorite NFL team is beating everyone (like the LA Rams are).  “They are killing everybody through the air,” crow the pundits.

You look at the data. The quarterback is averaging five passes per game and zero touchdowns.  But on the ground, the team is carrying 40 times per game and averaging four rushing touchdowns.

These statistics to my knowledge are fake and apply to no NFL team right now. The point is the data don’t support the proffered explanation. The team is winning on the ground, not through the air.

In the same vein, what if market volatility in October ties back to causes having no direct link to corporate earnings?

What difference does it make if the stock market is down on earnings fears or something else?  Because investor-relations professionals message in support of fundamental performance, including earnings.  Boards and management teams are incentivized via performance. Active stock-picking investors key off financial performance.

If the market isn’t swooning over performance, that’s important to know!

Returning to our football analogy, what data would help us understand what’s hurting markets?  Follow the money.

We wrote last week about the colossal shift from active to passive funds in equities the past decade.  That trend has pushed Exchange-Traded Funds toward 50% of market volume. When passive money rebalanced all over the market to end September, the impact tipped equities over.

Now step forward to options expirations, which occurred last week, new ones trading Monday, and Counterparty Tuesday for truing up books yesterday. Money leveraged into equities had to mark derivatives to market. Counterparties sold associated inventory.

Collateral has likely devalued, so the swaps market gets hit. Counterparties were shedding collateral. The cost of insuring portfolios has likely risen because counterparties may have taken blows to their own balance sheets. As costs rise, demand falters.

Because Counterparty Tuesday in October falls during quarterly reporting, it’s convenient to blame earnings. But it doesn’t match measurable statistics, including the size of the derivatives market, the size and movement of collateral for ETFs (a topic we will return to until it makes sense), or the way prices are set in stocks today.

The good news?  Counterparty Tuesday is a one-day event. Once it’s done, it’s done. And our Market Structure Sentiment index bottomed Oct 22. We won’t be surprised if the market surges – on earnings enthusiasm? – for a few days.

The capital markets have yet to broadly adapt to the age of machines, derivatives and substitutes for stocks, like ETFs, where earnings may pale next to Counterparty Tuesday, which can rock the globe.

The Matrix

FactSet says quarterly earnings are up 23% from a year ago. Why have stocks declined?

There’s an inclination to grasp at fundamental explanations. Yet stock pickers generally don’t reactively sell because most times they must be fully invested (meaning to sell, they must buy).

Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street claim for Exchange-Traded Funds tracking the S&P 500 or Russell 1000 that turnover is 3-5%. (Editorial note: Those figures exclude creations and redemptions of ETF shares totaling trillions annually – a story we’ve told exclusively in the Market Structure Map.)

If investors are not responsible, who or what is?  Machines. By market rule all trades wanting to set the best bid to buy or offer to sell are automated – running on an algorithm. Why? Because the best price can be anyplace at anytime in the market system, and trades must move fluidly to it.

Thus, machines have become hugely influential in determining how prices are calculated. An amalgam of broker algorithms, smart routers and exchange order types are continually calculating the probability of higher or lower prices and completing a trade.

By our measures, back on Apr 19 the probability of calculating higher prices dropped. Why? Perhaps risk calculations for asset managers ordered rotation from overweighted equities or a need to slough off capital gains from ETFs (stuff mathematical models routinely do).

We have a mathematical representation for it: The market was Overbought. It doesn’t mean people are overpaying for fundamentals. It says machines will lack data to arrive at higher prices.  What follows this condition is nearly always a flat or lower market.

We know then that math arising from market rules is more powerful than a 23% increase in earnings. That should disturb stock pickers and public companies. If the market is The Matrix (if you’re younger than the movie, watch it to understand the reference), what are we all doing straining so hard to be outliers?

And why do machines possess the capacity to trump value-creation?

Good question.

By the way, the math is now changing. It’s resolving toward a mean.  We measure these price-setting propensities with a 10-point scale, the ModernIR Behavioral Index. Most of the time the stock market trades between 4.0 and 6.0, mean-reverting to 5.0 or thereabouts.

It returns to the middle because rules propel it there. Stocks must trade between the best bid or offer. What lies there? The average price. What do indexes and ETFs hew to? Averages.  We’ve explained this before.

When the market slops beyond 6.0, a mean-reversion is coming.  When it drops below 4.0, it signals upward mean-reversion. The market has descended from about 6.5 a week ago to 5.2 yesterday. The market will soon level off or rise as it did microcosmically yesterday, a day of extremes that ended back near midway (but it’s not down to 4.0, notice).

If math is a more reliable indicator of the future than earnings, why is everybody fixated on earnings versus expectations? What if that model is obsolete? And is that a bad thing?

I don’t think so. The earnings-versus-expectations convention promotes arbitrage. Shouldn’t capital-formation power the market?

Climbing Mountains

You’re welcome.

Had Karen and I not departed Sep 20 for Bavaria to ride bikes along the Alps, who knows what the market might have done?  There’s high statistical correlation between our debouchment abroad and a further surge for US stocks.

Stocks spent all of September above 5.5 on the 10-point ModernIR Sentiment Index. Money never paused, blowing through September expirations and defying statistics saying 80% of the time stocks decline when Sentiment peaks as derivatives lapse.

Were we committed to the interests of stock investors we’d pack our bags with laundered undergarments and return to Germany before the market stalls.

But is the market rational?

Univ. of Chicago professor Richard Thaler, who won the Nobel Prize this week for his work on behavioral economics, is as flummoxed as the rest by its disregard for risk. While Professor Thaler might skewer my certitude to knowledge quotient (you’ll have to read more about him to understand that one), I think I know why.

Machines act like people.  My Google Pixel phone constructed a very human montage of our visit to Rothenberg, a Franconian walled medieval city in the woods east of Mannheim.  I didn’t pick the photos or music. I turned on my phone the next day and it said here’s your movie.  (For awesome views of our trip click here, here, here and here.)

Google also classifies my photos by type – mountains, lakes, waterfalls, boats, cars, churches, flowers, farms, beer.

Don’t you suppose algorithms can do the same with stocks? We have long written about the capacity machines possess to make trading decisions, functionally no different than my Pixel’s facility with photographs.

For companies and investors watching headlines, it appears humans are responding.  If airline stocks are up because of good guidance from United Airlines and American, we suppose humans are doing it. But machines can use data to assemble a stock collage.

The way to sort humans from robots is by behavior. It’s subtle. If I sent around my phone’s Rothenberg Polka, where the only part I played was naming it, recipients would assume I chose photos and set them to music. Karen would look at it and say, “Get rid of that photo. I don’t like it.”

Subtleties are human. Central tendencies like flowers and waterfalls are well within machine purview. Machines don’t like or dislike things. They just mix and match.

Apply to stocks. It explains why the market is impervious to shootings, temblors, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, geopolitical tension. Those aren’t in the algorithm.

Humans thus far uniquely grapple with fear and greed. A market that is neither greedy nor fearful is not rational. But it can climb mountains of doubt and confound game theorists. What we don’t know is how machines will treat mismatched data. We haven’t had much of it in over nine years.

Our Best Sentiments

Question: “Would you like more timely information about who owns your shares?”

Answer: Yes!

Question: “Would you be willing to ask for more timely information?”

Answer: Um…

Let’s change that “um” to a yes! You know about NIRI’s effort to shorten 13f reporting windows? Read about it here. All you have to do is fill out NIRI’s prepared template and email it to the address provided. There are 23 comment letters supporting the initiative as of March 5. With 1,600 companies in NIRI, we ought to be able to push the number up. See comment letters here: http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-659/4-659.shtml

This effort illustrates the difference between saying something and doing it (and there’s some serious doing here, which is great news!).

Speaking of which, TD Ameritrade is separating the chatter from the chart in its six million retail accounts with the TD Ameritrade IMX, an index showing what retail investors are thinking by tracking what they’re doing. Sentiment out this week for February was the best in stocks since June 2011.

Of course, one measure doth not a market make. We have an algorithm that looks for relative flows from retail money, and we saw more this period too. But other measures differed. As of March 5, Sentiment was 4.55, just below Neutral. We measure Sentiment by tracking relative changes in market-share for big behaviors and weighting that movement according to midpoint price-changes. It’s like a market-cap-weighted index. Statistically, 23% of clients had Negative market sentiment, 68% were Neutral, and 9% were Positive. (more…)

Stocks and the Fiscal Cliff

CNBC has a Fiscal Cliff countdown clock.

You can’t click a TV remote or a web page without somebody declaring that Congress’s inability to compromise on tax rates and spending cuts before December 31 will incinerate equities.

It’s predicated on sound logic. Higher taxes on investment behavior are likely to impact that behavior negatively. Motivation.

We here in Denver before we found the Holy Grail – Peyton Manning – hailed Tim Tebow, who famously sent a one-word tweet after Eli Manning’s Giants topped the Patriots in last year’s Super Bowl: Motivation.

If what one expects will happen isn’t aligned with motivation, then what one expects is unlikely to occur. That’s true in police work, business, life-goals – nearly everything. Including the stock market.

Suppose I expect that because you are a football fan you’re likely to be at Hanson’s Pub near 6:30 p.m. Mondays in Denver for the weekly NFL game. If “you” means my wife, who likes “Johnny Football” Manziel at her Alma Mater Texas A&M but doesn’t give a hoot about the NFL, my expectation won’t match reality. Monday Night Football does not motivate her.

What motivates the market? Many pundits (not all!) conclude that markets will behave badly unless a deal is in the works. That would be true if money in the markets were all rational. But statistically, Rational Investment – money following fundamentals – is only 15% of daily volume across the major US markets. Technically, we peg it at 14.2% the past 200 days, a bit more in the past five (exactly 15%). (more…)