Seasonal Trading Strategy for Stock Funds and US Federal Employee TSP 401k Retirement Accounts

Summary:
Of course we know past performance does not guarantee future results but there is something here that makes this investor think that just maybe there is something more to the story this time.

Article Body:
“Sell in May and Stay Away” Words to live and invest by?  I don’t know who coined the phrase but I did a bit of research and yes this strategy would have worked out for you is you had implemented it over the life of the TSP retirement account.   Of course we know past performance does not guarantee future results but there is something here that makes this investor think that just maybe there is something more to the story this time.

There are five funds available in the Thrift Savings Plan.

The C Fund is based on the S&P 500
The F Fund is designed to match the bonds in the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate (LBA) index.
The G Fund invests in short-term U.S. treasuries
The S Fund follows the Wilshire 4500 index
The I Fund follows the EAFE index

From its inception in 1988 through the end of 2005 the C Fund (based on the S&P 500) has averaged 12.61556% per year.  In the months October through May it averaged12.87611%.   From June through September it averaged -0.26056%.   For the same 18 year period, the F Fund averaged 3.356111% for the four months June through September.   Had you sold all of your stock C Fund on May 31 and moved all your money into the F Fund and then moved all of your money from the F Fund back to the C Fund on September 30th, you would have realized a 3.616667% per year increase in your rate of return over 18 years.  Let me repeat this, a 3.616667% annual increase based on only two trades per year.

From 2001 through 2005 the C Fund (based on the S&P 500) annual average was only 2.22%.  Its average gain October through May was 9.24% while it’s June through September average was an appalling 7.02% loss.  Utilizing the same strategy as above, our average rate of return would have jumped from an anemic 2.22% to a healthy 11.38%.  That is an amazing increase of over 9% based on just two trades per year.

Since its inception in 2001 the S Fund (based on the Wilshire 4500 index) has averaged 9.314% and the I Fund (based on the EAFE index) averaged 6.56%.   They show the same pattern of gains October through May, with gains of 14.05% for the S Fund and 10.368% for the I Fund annually during those eight months. They also continue the S Fund pattern of losses Jun through September, a 4.736% loss for the S Fund and 3.808% loss for the I Fund.  Using the same strategy of eight months in the S and I funds and four months in the F Funds, you would have realized additional gains of 6.336% for the S Fund and 5.378% for the I fund brining your rate of return to 15.65% for an S+F strategy and 11.938% for an I+F strategy.  

What do you think about this?  Join the TSPcenter forum and let me know.  My gut tells me we are in for a bad summer.  Of course that could be a result of the pepperoni pizza I just ate.

Against The Top Down Approach To Picking Stocks

Summary:
If you have heard fund managers talk about the way they invest, you know a great many employ a top down approach. First, they decide how much of their portfolio to allocate to stocks and how much to allocate to bonds. At this point, they may also decide upon the relative mix of foreign and domestic securities. Next, they decide upon the industries to invest in. It is not until all these decisions have been made that they actually get down to analyzing any particular securitie...

Article Body:
If you have heard fund managers talk about the way they invest, you know a great many employ a top down approach. First, they decide how much of their portfolio to allocate to stocks and how much to allocate to bonds. At this point, they may also decide upon the relative mix of foreign and domestic securities. Next, they decide upon the industries to invest in. It is not until all these decisions have been made that they actually get down to analyzing any particular securities. If you think logically about this approach for but a moment, you will recognize how truly foolish it is.

A stock’s earnings yield is the inverse of its P/E ratio. So, a stock with a P/E ratio of 25 has an earnings yield of 4%, while a stock with a P/E ratio of 8 has an earnings yield of 12.5%. In this way, a low P/E stock is comparable to a high – yield bond.

Now, if these low P/E stocks had very unstable earnings or carried a great deal of debt, the spread between the long bond yield and the earnings yield of these stocks might be justified. However, many low P/E stocks actually have more stable earnings than their high multiple kin. Some do employ a great deal of debt. Still, within recent memory, one could find a stock with an earnings yield of 8 – 12%, a dividend yield of 3- 5%, and literally no debt, despite some of the lowest bond yields in half a century. This situation could only come about if investors shopped for their bonds without also considering stocks. This makes about as much sense as shopping for a van without also considering a car or truck.

All investments are ultimately cash to cash operations. As such, they should be judged by a single measure: the discounted value of their future cash flows. For this reason, a top down approach to investing is nonsensical. Starting your search by first deciding upon the form of security or the industry is like a general manager deciding upon a left handed or right handed pitcher before evaluating each individual player. In both cases, the choice is not merely hasty; it’s false. Even if pitching left handed is inherently more effective, the general manager is not comparing apples and oranges; he’s comparing pitchers. Whatever inherent advantage or disadvantage exists in a pitcher’s handedness can be reduced to an ultimate value (e.g., run value). For this reason, a pitcher’s handedness is merely one factor (among many) to be considered, not a binding choice to be made. The same is true of the form of security. It is neither more necessary nor more logical for an investor to prefer all bonds over all stocks (or

Clearly, the most prudent approach to investing is to evaluate each individual security in relation to all others, and only to consider the form of security insofar as it affects each individual evaluation. A top down approach to investing is an unnecessary hindrance. Some very smart investors have imposed it upon themselves and overcome it; but, there is no need for you to do the same.

An Analysis Of Overstock.com (OSTK)

Summary:
Why is a value investor writing about an unprofitable internet company? Because value investing is about finding dollars that trade for fifty cents; with a market cap of less than 75% of sales, Overstock.com (OSTK) looks like it may be exactly that.

But isn’t it too risky?

The greatest risk in any investment is the risk of overpaying. So, the real question is: what is Overstock worth? I think it’s worth at least $1.5 billion. With Overstock’s market cap currently sitti...

Article Body:
Why is a value investor writing about an unprofitable internet company? Because value investing is about finding dollars that trade for fifty cents; with a market cap of less than 75% of sales, Overstock.com (OSTK) looks like it may be exactly that.

But isn’t it too risky?

The greatest risk in any investment is the risk of overpaying. So, the real question is: what is Overstock worth? I think it’s worth at least $1.5 billion. With Overstock’s market cap currently sitting around $500 million, my valuation certainly looks far fetched. But, there’s only one way to know for sure. Let’s take apart my argument piece by piece, and see if any of my assumptions are unreasonable.

First Assumption: Over the next five years, Overstock will neither generate truly free cash flow nor consume cash. In other words, its free cash flow margin will average 0%. Cash generation in some years will exactly offset cash consumption in other years. Obviously, this assumption is unreasonable, because there is almost no chance the cash flows will exactly offset.

That’s not a problem if it turns out Overstock does generate some free cash flow over the next five years. In that case, my assumption simply errs on the side of caution. If, however, it turns out Overstock actually consumes cash over the next five years, there is a problem – possibly a very big problem. So, which scenario is more likely?

Overstock’s revenues are growing quickly. Gross margins look solid at 13.3% in 2004 and 14.9% over the last twelve months. Overstock’s unprofitability is the result of its selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) which have been growing exponentially. Will these expenses continue to grow? Yes, but not as fast as revenues. Over the last twelve months, Overstock’s spending on cap ex has been 5.6% of sales. That number is an aberration. In the long run, spending on cap ex should not exceed 3% of sales. Considering the business Overstock is in and the expected sales growth, the company will, more likely than not, generate some free cash flow over the next five years. Therefore, the assumption that Overstock will be cash flow neutral over the next five years is not overly optimistic.

Second Assumption: Over the next five years, Overstock’s sales will grow by 15% annually. Is this an unreasonable assumption? Again, I don’t think it is. Very few industries are expected to grow as fast as eCommerce. Overstock’s revenue growth in 2003 and 2004 was over 100%. In the past year, that growth has slowed. However, it is still closer to 50% than it is to 15%. Overstock isn’t in a cyclical business. So, there is no reason to believe current sales are abnormally high.

Also, all that spending on advertising is increasing consumers’ awareness of Overstock. A review of Overstock’s traffic data shows it has not only been gaining more visitors; it has also been climbing the ranks of the most popular web sites. While it is a long, long way from the Amazons, Yahoos, and eBays of the world (and will never reach those heights) Overstock is becoming a well known internet destination. This fact was most clearly evident in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Shoppers who visited Overstock during the holiday season obviously know it exists, and may very well return at some other point in the year. Analysts are predicting very high growth rates for Overstock; however, they are also recommending you sell the stock. I don’t put any weight in their estimates. But, for the other reasons given, I believe the assumption that Overstock will grow sales at 15% a year for the next five years is not unreasonable.

Third Assumption: Six to ten years from today, Overstock will have a free cash flow margin of 3%. Ten years from today, Overstock’s free cash flow margin will rise to 4% and remain at that level. Now, of all the assumptions I’ve made, this one is the most questionable. Sure, Amazon has that kind of free cash flow margin, but Overstock isn’t Amazon, and it never will be Amazon. Overstock’s gross margins are less than Amazon’s. In fact, Overstock’s gross margins are less than Wal – Mart’s. However, Overstock’s fixed costs will eat up a much smaller portion of its sales than is the case over at Wal - Mart.

If you compare Overstock to other online retailers, you will see that if Overstock does experience strong sales growth, a 3% free cash flow margin six years from now is not unreasonable. I assumed Overstock’s sustainable free cash flow margin will be 4%. There’s a case to be made that 4% is too high. I won’t make that case, because I don’t believe in it. Remember, that 4% number comes ten years out. That gives Overstock plenty of time to grow sales and thus reduce SG&A as a percentage of sales.

Fourth Assumption: Six to ten years from today, Overstock will be growing sales by 12% a year; eleven to fifteen years from today, Overstock will be growing sales by 8% a year; thereafter, Overstock will grow sales by 4% a year. Let’s see what this really means. According to these assumptions, Overstock’s sales will be as follows:

Today: $707 million

2011: $1.59 billion

2016: $2.71 billion

2021: $3.83 billion

2026: $4.66 billion

2031: $5.67 billion

2036: $6.90 billion

Seven billion dollars is not an unreasonable target – if you have thirty years to achieve it. To put that figure in perspective, Amazon.com currently has sales of about $8 billion. So, even after thirty years, these assumptions don’t lead to Overstock reaching the same size as today’s Amazon. Don’t forget these numbers assume some inflation. For instance, if inflation averages 3% a year over the next thirty years, Overstock’s projected $6.90 billion in sales only translates to $2.84 billion in today’s dollars. So, these assumptions only lead to a fourfold increase in Overstock’s real sales over a period of thirty years. I think that’s pretty reasonable.

If you take these four assumptions together, you get a value of $1.5 billion for Overstock. Today, Mr. Market is offering it for $500 million – that’s why I’m writing about an unprofitable internet company.

A Spiraling Market and Rising Penny Stock Opportunities

Summary:
It's been a wild and wooly couple of weeks on the international stock markets [June, 2006]. But is the recent slide grinding to a halt...or just taking a breather before tumbling some more? And more importantly, what does it mean to astute penny stock investors?

Article Body:
It's been a wild and wooly couple of weeks on the international stock markets. But is the recent slide grinding to a halt...or just taking a breather before tumbling some more? And more importantly, what does it mean to astute penny stock investors?

Wall Street recently stumbled to its worst week of the year, and global stock markets fell dramatically on concerns about rising interest rates and slowing growth. After rising almost 9% in the first four months of the year, the Dow Jones industrial average has fallen about 6.5% from a six-year high, reached May 10, 2006.

Stocks have been ailing because penny stock investors fear the Fed could be so focused on inflation that it ignores signs of an economic slowdown, raises interest rates too high and sends the economy into a recession.

Global stock markets were sent reeling last week after golden-tongued U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke shocked penny stock investors in saying the Fed will continue raising interest rates to keep inflation in check.

And that decision will have a direct impact on the penny stock market. Higher interest rates hurt penny stock prices because investors believe it will curb economic growth and corporate profits.

But why is inflation heating up? Higher energy costs. Traders and penny stock investors are also worried that with the hurricane season officially under way, Gulf Coast refineries and oil production sites could be damaged again this summer and fall.

And higher interest rates have the ability to affect the entire economy. Finance charges on credit cards will rise. So too will rates on mortgages and home equity loans, putting additional pressure on homebuyers and a softening housing market. Ultimately, it will cost more to borrow for expansion.

But does this signal doom-and-gloom for the penny stock market? Au contraire. While the temptation to sell everything can be overwhelming, some see this as a great opportunity. "I would not be selling. I would tend to be buying," said one New York analyst.

So how exactly is this an opportunity? It just so happens that many companies caught in the market's downward spiral are cheaper than they were a few weeks ago. And as any seasoned penny stock investor will tell you, buying a great penny stock when it's been beaten down isn't a bad way to make money over the long haul.

If you can stomach some of the volatility that is. While many blue chip investors have difficulty handling the market's unpredictability...it's par for the course.

So, "snap out of it," said another watcher. A month of dizzying selling has brought the markets into an attractive range. Is it possible the markets will fall more? Absolutely. After all, no penny stock is a sure thing. But one thing is certain: "Stocks are much cheaper now than they were two months ago."