Commentaries

PMC Weekly Review - October 14, 2019

Macro View: Beta Shifts, P/E, and a New “New Normal”?

We learned in Finance 101 that beta is a metric designed to gauge sensitivity. A stock with a beta of 1.50 relative to the S&P 500 Index should, on average, gain or lose $1.50 for every $1 gained or lost by the index. Growth stocks, which often have relatively high price-to-earnings ratios, tend to have beta values greater than 1.0, whereas value stocks generally have lower P/E ratios and show beta values below 1.0. Thus, conventional wisdom dictates that growth stocks should lead the charge during equity rallies, and value should serve as the safe haven through drawdowns, right?

Ask most active value managers why they have underperformed, and the answer is likely to be some version of the value style being out of favor relative to growth during this market cycle. And, that is fair. After all, we are in the longest-running bull market to date, now at more than ten years. It fits the traditional model of thinking…except for the fact that Q42018 was the S&P 500 Index’s worst quarter since 2011, and these high P/E names trounced the low P/E names during this downturn.

The real kicker? An exhibit published by Todd Asset Management, LLC illustrates that when dividing the S&P 500 Index into quintiles by P/E, from December 31, 2018, to June 30, 2019, the stocks with the lowest average P/E ratios actually had the highest average beta at 1.09; stocks in the quintiles with a higher average P/E had beta values below 1.0!

In other words, beginning in Q42018 and extending through mid-2019, high P/E stocks actually have been less sensitive to market movements than low P/E stocks. Meaning, expensive growth stocks have shifted to becoming viewed as the safe haven!

Is up the new down? Have investors forgotten the pain of 2008? Doubtful, given the plethora of daily headlines flashing recession warning lights. Rather than blindly clinging to traditional adages, and in the spirit of being open to regime changes and shifting paradigms, perhaps investors need to ask better questions. For instance, is it now more appropriate to view companies like Apple, Amazon, and Netflix as consumer fixtures than as boom/bust, high-flying tech names?

Further clouding matters are hot-button political concerns such as impeachment proceedings, China’s stumbling growth rate—6.20% in the second quarter, its slowest in more than 27 years—all shrouded in the 15-month trade war (trade concerns and impacts of tariffs had 28 mentions in the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) September meeting minutes). Analysis from Ned Davis Research shows that equity markets, quite remarkably, have risen in the year following midterm elections, in a trend that has repeated each and every midterm cycle since 1934, with an average trough-to-peak gain of +46.91%. Although 2018-2019 has not yet reached that performance threshold, the S&P 500 Index did rally to an all-time high in 2019. Studies suggest that a reason for this trend is that presidents preserve stimulus programs for the end of their term in order to boost the economy and improve their reelection chances. In yet another departure from historical norms, however, President Trump employed tax cuts relatively early in his term. Thus, speculation ran rampant that President Trump’s August round of tariffs was meant, in part, to pressure Jerome Powell, Chair of the Federal Reserve (the Fed), to facilitate more aggressive rate cuts to boost markets, culminating with his tweet: “My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?”

In the September FOMC meeting, the Fed initiated the second rate cut of 2019, again by the standard increment of 25 basis points, due to trade uncertainty and slowing global growth. (Keep in mind that each rate cut becomes a proportionately larger decrease, as shaving 25 basis points from the 1.75%-2.00% range is a greater cut in relative terms than 25 bps from the 4.25%-4.50% ranges we saw at the dawn of the financial crisis in 2007.) This begets another possible shift investors may not be prepared for, namely: Is the market overly optimistic in pricing in future rate cuts? Have we grown dependent on easy money in this “lower for longer” era? According to a Yahoo Finance report, the CME Group estimates the odds of a third rate cut in late-October 2019 at 84%. That said, in September’s FOMC meeting, the Fed’s policymakers were divided three ways on interest rates: The majority favored the most recent rate cut, but a separate group wanted a cut of 50 basis points, whereas a third faction wanted no rate cut at all.

So, is this shift in beta norms from 2018-2019 merely noise, or is it the canary in the coal mine signaling yet another “New Normal”? The result remains to be seen and is likely somewhere between—an indicator, perhaps, that the prudent investor would be well served to question some longstanding assumptions rather than assuming history is destined to repeat itself.

Beau Noeske, CFA | VP, Senior Investment Analyst

The information, analysis, and opinions expressed herein are for general and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this weekly review is intended to constitute legal, tax, accounting, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. All investments carry a certain risk, and there is no assurance that an investment will provide positive performance over any period of time. An investor may experience loss of principal. Investment decisions should always be made based on the investor’s specific financial needs and objectives, goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance. The asset classes and/or investment strategies described may not be suitable for all investors and investors should consult with an investment advisor to determine the appropriate investment strategy. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Information obtained from third party sources are believed to be reliable but not guaranteed. Envestnet|PMC™ makes no representation regarding the accuracy or completeness of information provided herein. All opinions and views constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. Investments in smaller companies carry greater risk than is customarily associated with larger companies for various reasons such as volatility of earnings and prospects, higher failure rates, and limited markets, product lines or financial resources. Investing overseas involves special risks, including the volatility of currency exchange rates and, in some cases, limited geographic focus, political and economic instability, and relatively illiquid markets. Income (bond) securities are subject to interest rate risk, which is the risk that debt securities in a portfolio will decline in value because of increases in market interest rates. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are subject to risks similar to those of stocks, such as market risk. Investing in ETFs may bear indirect fees and expenses charged by ETFs in addition to its direct fees and expenses, as well as indirectly bearing the principal risks of those ETFs. ETFs may trade at a discount to their net asset value and are subject to the market fluctuations of their underlying investments. Investing in commodities can be volatile and can suffer from periods of prolonged decline in value and may not be suitable for all investors. Index Performance is presented for illustrative purposes only and does not represent the performance of any specific investment product or portfolio. An investment cannot be made directly into an index. Alternative Investments may have complex terms and features that are not easily understood and are not suitable for all investors. You should conduct your own due diligence to ensure you understand the features of the product before investing. Alternative investment strategies may employ a variety of hedging techniques and non-traditional instruments such as inverse and leveraged products. Certain hedging techniques include matched combinations that neutralize or offset individual risks such as merger arbitrage, long/short equity, convertible bond arbitrage and fixed-income arbitrage. Leveraged products are those that employ financial derivatives and debt to try to achieve a multiple (for example two or three times) of the return or inverse return of a stated index or benchmark over the course of a single day. Inverse products utilize short selling, derivatives trading, and other leveraged investment techniques, such as futures trading to achieve their objectives, mainly to track the inverse of their benchmarks. As with all investments, there is no assurance that any investment strategies will achieve their objectives or protect against losses. Neither Envestnet, Envestnet|PMC™ nor its representatives render tax, accounting or legal advice. Any tax statements contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding U.S. federal, state, or local tax penalties. Taxpayers should always seek advice based on their own particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. © 2019 Envestnet. All rights reserved.

Featuring

Beau Noeske, CFA
Vice President, Senior Investment Analyst

Articles By This Author

PMC Weekly Review - October 14, 2019