Is the bull back? Did he ever leave, or was he just ignored while investors focused on various sources of volatility such as trade wars, rising interest rates and Italian banks? Whatever the case, investors lost sight of all the positive market drivers that have been in place and still support the bull narrative headed into 2019. While prudence demands looking at all risks, it’s focusing on actual earnings and economic data which is the key to navigating stormy markets. Even though spiking Italian bond yields and the possibility of a Euro collapse can be distracting, the fact that the S&P is currently trading at 17.2x 2018 blended operating earnings and just 15.5x 2019 estimates is what should be investors’ focus looking into next year. Given that the Q3 earnings theme was about a strong dollar driven sales headwind being offset by robust business demand, we can see top and bottom line growth gearing up for solid gains as FX risk can be managed in the short term but also reverses itself over the long term. The important point here is that solid business demand is not just reflected in healthy earnings and guidance but also in business activity metrics. The highly regarded ISM Manufacturing and Services surveys have shown a strong expansion all year with October’s data no exception. In fact, ISM research shows that October manufacturing and services data translate to 4.5% and 4.1% respectively annualized GDP growth versus the 3.5% Q3 growth just reported. Then we have the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index which is right near its all-time highs. Small businesses have responded very well to tax reform and deregulation by increasing their hiring and CapEx spend. Even as the “late cycle” narrative has just morphed into an “end of cycle” story, business activity and guidance show that we are still in an expansionary period.

Forming a virtuous cycle with healthy business activity is the strong labor market we currently have. Driving today’s labor market are historically low unemployment claims, record high job openings and a quits rate showing strong employee leverage in attaining better opportunities. It’s all these attributes that support strong consumer confidence and continued consumption.

Weekly unemployment claims are a great metric for labor market health thanks to its near real-time frequency and hard data basis. Because claims are often a financial lifeline for cyclical workers and are filed as soon as a job ends, we can look to this series to see any softening of the labor market. Thus far, there are no signs of that. Furthermore, if we look at claims data in the context of job openings (JOLTS), we see that claims can still grind lower and break below the 200K level.

The JOLTS data series, one of former Fed chairwoman Yellen’s favorite metrics, does a great job in capturing the liquidity of the labor market. Greater liquidity in this context is defined by the high level of openings and voluntary turnover (quits) we are seeing.

Overall, the data is showing that the labor market can tighten further, wages can still rise, and the economic expansion can continue.

With a solid economic backdrop in place, we can now focus on the actionable part of the situation which is market valuation. While determining any valuation is arguably more art than it is science, investors can still use a historical multiples analysis to get an idea of fair valuation. So, the question becomes what is a comparable period to this market and why?

With technological advancements being the fundamental driver of this economic expansion, it’s easy to draw a comparison to the market / expansion of 1996 – 2000 when the internet came to life, with the major difference today being that companies are actually making money! That said, today’s advancements like fracking, open source software (OSS), smart phones, cloud computing and artificial intelligence have had an even greater impact on today’s economy than what drove the original tech bubble of 2000. Aside from actual earnings, the subtle and powerful differences that make the current expansion so much stronger, sustainable and yet misunderstood are the changes which technology has had on inflation and productivity.

While consumers have enjoyed lower energy prices thanks to fracking and the U.S. going from being the world’s largest consumer of oil to the largest producer, it’s been advancements in information technology that have had the most profound effects. Lower costs of various consumer goods and services thanks to advances in technology and manufacturing processes can be easily seen in retail sales data while the much more permeating effects of technology like OSS remain difficult to measure. OSS is software whose inner workings are made public and can be enhanced by the public with many applications being available for free. OSS is being used for the development of E-commerce platforms, big data projects and many other applications across multiple sectors.  Big data includes the development of artificial intelligence and something near and dear to the investing world, algorithmic trading. Investment banks have groups who use OSS applications like Python to develop trading and various analytical applications. Python, which is free to download and use, is one of the most powerful and easy to use programming languages in existence. Banks are essentially able to create incredibly complex trading algorithms and data management tools which can be used across multiple asset classes for trading and research at a minimal cost. Thus, in the case of investment banks and other corporate users developing applications with Python and other OSS, productivity has been dramatically enhanced at minimum cost. As per the BLS, productivity is measured as the units of output produced per units of input, with input defined as the cost of goods and services used in that input. Which begs the question, what happens to productivity when an input cost is zero? Is it undefined? Granted, there are always some costs associated with something like OSS, but the point here is that with the nearly unlimited potential and scalability of something like OSS, the productivity achieved today is exponentially greater than anything of the past and has been generated at a fraction of the cost. It’s because of technological advances like fracking and OSS that we have not had run-away inflation in many goods and services and why traditional productivity metrics have failed to capture the phenomenon of advancements like OSS. The net effect of these technological advances are structural changes to inflation and productivity which have caused a unique situation of having a strong and sustained economic expansion with subdued inflation and increased productivity. This occurrence has allowed the Fed to not have to act as aggressively as they previously would have at this point in the cycle. So, it really is different this time.

How we view the Fed and inflation are critical in determining whether there will be earnings multiple expansion or contraction going forward. Given that rising rates are an accepted reason for multiple contraction, that can certainly help explain the slight S&P multiple contraction so far this year while actual 2018 S&P operating earnings have risen 27% from 2017. Being that it’s correct to argue that higher rates can contract multiples through a greater discounting of future earnings, it also opens the door to looking at the overall rate sensitivity of equity which is known as equity duration.

Equity duration was presented in work from Leibowitz, Sorenson, et al back in the 1980’s as part of portfolio / risk management work and is still used today. That said, one principal of duration is that as more capital is returned to the investor, the less sensitive an investment will be to changes in interest rates. For example, bonds that have a higher coupon rate will have a lower duration while the opposite can be seen in zero coupon bonds which have significant sensitivity to rate changes. In equities, return of capital comes primarily through dividends and stock buybacks. As we all know, since the financial crisis, stock buybacks have become a staple of corporate actions. Since the crisis, Yardeni Research estimates that S&P 500 shares outstanding have fallen by roughly 8% since their highs in 2010 while the dollar amount of dividends has more than doubled for the same period! With the significant increase in buybacks and dividends, an argument can be made that equity duration has been lowered, thus making equity prices more resilient to a rise in rates. Looking at the rise in rates we’ve had and that we’ve only seen a slight contraction in multiples while equity prices have still managed to hit all-time highs, the idea of a lower duration market is supported.

All this said, what markets and investors are dealing with today is an unprecedented combination of economic growth and technological advances that have changed the traditional business cycle and its metrics. Even without technology, the transition of the economy from a manufacturing / export base to that of a services / consumption one has had the effect of lengthening business cycles as the economy has become more self-sustaining. Now that we have made such significant technological advances, the business cycle, interest rates and their long-term behaviors need to be reassessed.

Taking a potentially less aggressive Fed along with the current economic environment, markets are set up for earnings and multiple growth going forward. A less aggressive Fed will take strength out of the dollar and put developed and emerging markets at ease. We can already see a more dovish Fed taking shape in recent remarks from Fed Chair Powell. Powell has acknowledged the strength of the economy, its great potential and, more importantly, his desire to support the expansion. Investors should take solace in the fact that we have a Fed chief who is taking a very pragmatic approach to monetary policy and will not just dogmatically raise rates as the traditional Fed playbook would dictate. A dovish Fed and a lower duration equity market is a great setup for 2019.

With current S&P operating earnings estimates for 2019 and a 20x multiple which is still 3x less than the average 23x multiple enjoyed throughout 1996-2000, the S&P 500 would trade  at 3,515 or about a 30% gain from today. While this may seem overly bullish given all the “end of cycle” rhetoric going around, it’s not if investors simply listen to what the Fed chair has to say and what the actual data is showing.  Earnings multiple and economic expansion are on deck for 2019 and will get investors’ attention while the “end of cycle” narrative goes into the recycling.

At the time of this posting, the author has the following positions: None

Marco Mazzocco is an associated member of T3 Trading Group, LLC (“T3TG”), a SEC registered Broker-Dealer & Member of the NASDAQ PHLX Stock Exchange. All trades made by Marco are placed through T3TG

As we head into what is typically the slowest part of the investment year, we have markets dealing with an unprecedented situation: the US – China trade war. While much of Wall Street is on vacation in August and trading volumes seem to dry up in the summer heat, markets and investors are now being held captive by escalating tariffs and rhetoric out of Washington and Beijing. Combining thin markets, lightning fast algo-driven trading and material information being released as quickly and randomly as a tweet can be tweeted, a perfect storm of market forces has been created. To weather this trade war storm and perhaps even use it to our advantage, one needs to understand how China’s trade policies developed and how they are managed. Fortunately, with just a brief history lesson and a look back at a surreal incident between a small American manufacturer and its Beijing hosts, we can get an excellent preview of how this trade war is likely to unfold.

The crux of the trade war is the US holding China accountable for its intellectual property theft and other aggressive business practices which are clearly considered standard operating procedures throughout public and private organizations in China. These operating procedures are part of a much larger protectionist dynamic of Chinese culture that stems from China having suffered through what is known as the “Century of Humiliation.” The Century refers to the years of 1839 to 1949 when the British and Japanese empires plundered China with Japan specifically carrying out numerous atrocities during World War II. Given these terrible occurrences and the deep social scars they left in Chinese society, it’s understandable why China has taken aggressive approaches to economic development as it re-established itself in the global economy. However, now that China sits atop the world economic order, these practices need to end because they are coming at the expense of its partners.

One area where China’s protectionist policies are well defined and stand out from global standards are in its labor laws. The OECD, a highly regarded and objective international organization, produces an indicator which reviews a country’s hiring / firing policies, their associated costs and then ranks them on a scale from 1 to 3.5, with 3.5 being the most restrictive. As you can see, China’s labor protection policies are essentially the strictest in the world because they are outdone only by Venezuela! To put this in perspective, France (a known labor-friendly country) is roughly twice as restrictive as the US while China is three times that of the US.

It’s these labor policies and the sense of entitlement they have created that gives us an excellent view into how an escalated trade war could play out. In 2013 an American business executive, Chip Starnes, was literally held hostage for six days by his employees over a labor dispute. Mr. Starnes company, Specialty Medical Supplies, was going through a restructuring and was going to terminate some positions and re-locate others. After severance packages were given to 30 (yes, just 30) terminated employees and others were told they would be relocated, the relocated employees began demanding severance pay as well. It was then that the issue escalated into Starnes being barricaded in company facilities by groups of employees who blocked all the exits. While no physical harm was done, although sleep deprivation tactics were used, Starnes was always allowed to communicate with his family, the US Embassy and his lawyers. Throughout the ordeal, and most troubling, is that local authorities sided with the employees and allowed the situation to continue until a new agreement was signed. As outrageous as this situation would be in any developed country, it’s a perfect example of how the “shakedown” mentality exists in China and is pervasive from high-level government trade policies all the way down through locally run businesses.

Thanks to Starnes shocking ordeal, it’s safe to assume that the civil unrest and reactions to a major corporate restructuring from the likes of Nike, Wal-Mart or GM, who employ 161K, 99K and 58K respectively in China, would be apoplectic compared to what happened with just the handful of employees in the Specialty Medical Supplies case. Then we have a more recent case of civil unrest from a trade war casualty, even though it was censored in Chinese media, but news still got through on Twitter, was when a temporary shutdown of ZTE (a known supplier of technology to China’s weapons industry, not just a telecom firm) idled 75K workers. Numerous tweets were seen that detailed workers’ feelings of frustration with the government’s inability to keep the business running. So, it’s not surprising that a deal with the Trump administration was quickly reached to get ZTE back open.

Along with IP theft being a known issue which Beijing doesn’t like to discuss, is also their fear of civil unrest. In a country of nearly 1.4 billion people who are being controlled by President Xi and his Politburo, civil unrest can’t be allowed to happen. China has made giant strides in its development over the last several decades which was made possible through authoritarian and effective leadership. However, this leadership is only possible through a satisfied and passive body of people who are willing to accept strict leadership in return for economic gains. Like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where the citizenry is appeased through massive social entitlements, China’s leadership needs to keep the masses happy, or they could lose their grip on power.

Looking at the potential massive civil unrest that could be unleashed from a full-scale trade war, it seems more likely that Beijing will do whatever is necessary to keep businesses open and jobs where they are. So, while there will be more rhetoric out of China as the Trump administration pushes for fair trade and fair business practices, an amicable solution is the most likely outcome. While some will argue that China can retaliate with similar actions that could cause unemployment here, the American economy with its services base and dynamic nature will be much better able to handle such retaliatory responses. There will be no hostage taking in America when corporate restructurings happen, and people will find a way to persevere as we always have.

With all this said, if we take the trade war narrative out of the equation and allow investors to focus on the excellent earnings season we’re having and the fact that the S&P is now trading at just 17.9x 2018 (versus 25x seen in the 1997-2000 bull market) blended operating earnings, we see that there are a lot of good things going for this market. Now, with a Fed saying that they are close to a neutral rate, long term rates settling in with structurally lower inflation dynamics (see third paragraph) and a healthy economic backdrop, we have a market primed for earnings growth and multiple expansion…In which case, the only things shaking will be the bears.

At the time of this posting, the author has the following positions: None

Marco Mazzocco is an associated member of T3 Trading Group, LLC (“T3TG”), a SEC registered Broker-Dealer & Member of the NASDAQ PHLX Stock Exchange. All trades made by Marco are placed through T3TG

With the first FOMC meeting and press conference led by Chairman Powell out of the way now, investors were given an excellent look at the beginning of a new era at the Fed. Powell, coming from a business and legal background, takes the reins after twelve years of career academics having had the Fed’s top spot. The difference in background and approach was evident in how Powell responded to questions from the press. When specifically questioned about various inflation and employment relationships, Powell used terms like “unobservable” and “disparate” to describe the underlying data and how the views on those subjects are at the Fed. These were candid answers that come from a person not being overly biased by any one particular economic theory as most traditional economists are. Then near the end of the Q&A, to hear the new Fed chair openly disagree with the predictive powers of an inverted yield curve by addressing the underlying economic factors involved instead of just granting omniscient status to such an established bond market signal was nothing short of fantastic. Powell showed flexibility and an openness of thought that was quite refreshing. However, he didn’t stray so far from the script as to cause any wild market swings. Powell effectively achieved what all his predecessors have strived for since Greenspan’s “irrational exuberance” speech, which was to not rock the boat too much. Powell made it clear that the Fed was going to be focused on its two mandates and that he wasn’t interested in any political games. While it seems to be an exercise in futility to say political games won’t be an issue in this environment, Powell still gets the benefit of the doubt for now.

Powell’s responses in the Q&A should be of great comfort to investors. Yesterday, we heard from a Fed chair who is looking to be pragmatic, not dogmatic. Powell is the perfect fed-speak version of #Trump pro-business policies.

So, the question is, now what? The big debate in markets and a major focus of the Fed, is how will inflation play out? As Powell referred to in his “flat” Phillips curve explanation, inflation is lagging the strength in employment. The reason for this lag is of great debate in economic circles and is most attributable to advances in technology in my opinion. Thanks to technology, we find ourselves in a period marked by low inflation and sustainable levels of healthy growth. This is where the art of analysis Trumps science because we are dealing with intangibles and unobservable metrics that must be handled with open mindedness. Like the concept of “dark matter” in physics which scientists use to explain how galaxies maintain their shape when there isn’t enough observable mass to explain it, we know technology has impacted productivity and inflation, just not by how much. We know that thanks to fracking there has been a structural change to oil markets which has filtered through to nearly all products and processes in the form of lower prices with simultaneously higher demand. Then thanks to smart-phones, the on-line renaissance, and the “experiential” economy, the entire retail industry and traditional consumption have changed dramatically to the benefit of consumers through lower prices and increased demand. The moral of the story here is that inflation is different this time. The great news is that we have a Fed chair who is willing to accept this difference and isn’t going to throw markets into a tailspin trying to fit the situation into a box that it doesn’t belong.

“If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never,” is a post-election quote from Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman after Donald Trump won the 2016 election. Since then, the S&P 500 is up 23% with 19% of that coming last year. I cite that quote because it’s an excellent example of how personal biases, ignorance of actual data and a negative view of markets were being promoted in financial media heading into 2017. In fact, last year is an excellent example of how many market participants gave in to preconceived notions about market outcomes and then were caught completely offsides from the actual results. And now, with the S&P sitting just a breath away from its all-time highs, investors are faced with difficult decisions on how to manage their gains and how to invest new money. It’s at critical junctures like this where investing becomes as much an exercise of mental fortitude as it is a test of economic knowledge. This is why it’s so important to assess, not just overall market valuation and future growth rates, but also the psychological reasons that cause investing at this stage to be so uncomfortable.

Starting in 2016 and through 2017, the “late cycle” narrative was being used by many pundits throughout financial media to describe an economy and market that were at the end of their prosperous times. The “late cycle” concept is rooted in NBER data which shows that on average since World War II, recessions occur about every six years. This 6-year average completely ignores the changes that have taken place in the American economy which I discussed previously and explained why cycles have lengthened as the economy has become services / consumption based. While the calendar recession timeline is an easy explanation, it’s a very weak analysis that has now become ingrained in investors’ thought processes. The reality is that recessions are started by some type of shock to the economy like a real estate crash, stock market crash or an inflationary spike as was seen after the oil embargo of 1973. The point here is that it’s incorrect to allow the calendar to dictate the timing of recessions and even worse to base investment strategies around it. From a behavioral finance perspective, when a concept like 6-year recession timing takes precedence over the actual economic data being presented, this is called conservatism bias. Conservatism biases lead investors to overestimate unlikely events (recessions) and to underestimate the likely events (continued economic expansion). This bias also causes investors to ignore new data like rising corporate profits, strong business activity data and a newly elected pro-business administration for the mental ease and comfort of assuming a recession is due.

We can see this bias showing itself in the 2017 predictions by this panel of experts in Barron’s:

We see that even with economic data showing growth into 2017 and a new administration promising pro-business policy changes, the average predicted return was 6.3% which then falls to just 5.4% if we back out the one bullish strategist from Prudential.

Analyzing the predictions of the panel shows that all but one of them were expecting multiples to contract which is a typical sign of late cycle / early recession market behavior. All the panelists above had the same data to work off of, but only one took the view of a bull market return. It’s also interesting to note that one of the lowest estimates was from Goldman Sachs and they revised their target upward in midyear to 2400 but were still citing “late-cycle dynamics” as a reason for slowing sales and earnings going forward. And now, with Q3 earnings season behind us, we see that a majority of firms have actually raised sales and earnings estimates for Q4 and 2018. According to Factset, 2018 is projected to have the best earnings growth since 2011. This earnings growth is a direct result of accelerating global economic growth and is not indicative of “late cycle” market behavior.

Looking at the economic data at the end of 2016, we see that it was showing growth. National ISM surveys and regional Federal Reserve Bank manufacturing data were all showing activity picking up headed into 2017.

Table: ISM data

(All chart data is the headline activity index taken from its respective Federal Reserve Bank research database.)

Then there was labor market data which was also showing significant strength in terms of a record high level of job openings and a persistently low level of unemployment claims data.

(data from DOL and BLS)

Essentially, at the end of 2016, the economic data was pointing towards further expansion, but most financial pundits were talking about the “late cycle” narrative simply because of the length of the expansion. Looking at the economic data and the pro-business rhetoric coming from Washington, an unbiased analysis showed that the stage had been set for 2017 to be a strong year for stocks, and it turned out to be exactly that. All one had to do to take advantage was to keep an open mind and stay focused on the data which is why my target for 2017 was 2700. Published on Twitter :

So, what’s in store for 2018? I’m looking for a sustained economic expansion throughout the year. I’m expecting ISM surveys to fluctuate around the mid 50’s and for unemployment claims to drift down to and through the 200,000 level as the labor market continues to tighten. We have a very unique situation in the US economy for 2018 as it’s already on a strong and sustainable path while the government is preparing significant stimulus in the form of a massive infrastructure rebuilding plan. Given the already tight labor market and rising commodity prices, there is a good possibility of getting a pick-up in inflation which could bring out a more aggressive Fed. Even with a more hawkish Fed, I still see equities performing well as economic growth and strong corporate earnings will be the dominating factors.

In terms of market valuation, I like to compare this market to the bull run of 1997 – 2000, a.k.a the original tech bubble. However, what separates today from then is that companies are actually making money. In 1997 – 2000 the S&P traded with an average 25 multiple on low quality and in some cases non-existent earnings.

Today, we have high quality and growing earnings. Coupling current earnings estimates with tax reform benefits and the pro-business agenda of the Trump administration, I see the S&P climbing to 3,350 in 2018. And with that, I wish everyone a happy New Year!!

“You can’t always get what you want..But if you try sometimes you just might find..You get what you need” are famous lyrics from the Rolling Stones that weren’t meant to be about markets, but they sure fit well after what was seen this past week. Markets came into October at lofty levels and primed for a fall after having worked through hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria and that manmade disaster Kim Jong Un. Even with all these terrible events and threats, equities managed to continue their march higher because the economic data never wavered. While pundits throughout financial media warned of impending crashes and doom, markets stayed focused on the data and finished last week with the S&P and Nasdaq at all-time highs.

With just over half of the S&P 500 having reported as of Friday, the market is indeed getting just what it needs, and that’s earnings. Strong results have come in across multiple sectors with industrials and technology leading the way. Major international firms ranging from CAT, MMM, UTX, MSFT, INTC and JPM are not only putting up great earnings but are also raising their guidance. Such confidence and visibility from market leaders like these only comes with a strong global economic backdrop. Thanks to global economic strength, the U.S. economy finds itself in an excellent position. The U.S. has the benefit of having 80% of our labor force working in consumption oriented services industries while the S&P 500 extracts roughly half of its earnings from manufacturing and export focused sectors like energy, materials and industrials. So as the global economy continues to strengthen, U.S. workers will reap the benefits from increased labor demand and wages while corporations earn significant profits domestically and internationally. In other words, exactly what the market needs.

While many analysts and strategists have been caught off guard by the strength of markets and the economy, the regional Fed data available has been showing the strength for quite some time now. The reason it’s been missed is because it’s “soft” data derived from surveys that many analysts are quick to discount as not valuable since some have short histories or just flat out aren’t paid attention to. Regardless, regional Fed data, as discussed in this space often, has been presenting evidence in support of the bullish narrative all along. The data has shown how activity has not only accelerated over the past couple years but has also gone virtually uninterrupted from the hurricanes and, most importantly, is showing strength as firms look ahead.

Leading the regional data is the highly regarded Philadelphia Fed which has been putting out its manufacturing survey since 1968 and is also considered an excellent proxy for national activity. The future (6 months out is the standard for all Fed data presented) expectations chart shown below shows just how historically strong the data is and how long it’s been at these levels. The chart also shows that we would need to see a significant trend change in the data before a recession becomes likely.

(All charts show diffusion indices which represent the percentage of positive responses minus negative ones)

Then we have the Kansas City Fed manufacturing survey whose data goes back to 2001 and covers Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming and the northern half of New Mexico. The future expectations index here just hit its series high.

The Kansas City and Dallas survey discussed next are quite telling, as one would expect, about the relationship between energy prices and business activity in those neighboring regions. The chart shows how expectations took a dramatic tumble at the same time oil prices did but have since rebounded just as oil has. Given the stability we’ve seen in oil prices and OPEC’s stated commitment to keeping production in line with demand, a repeat of the 2016 collapse in oil prices is highly unlikely. That said, we can see why future expectations look so positive for the area.

In a true testament of resiliency, we have the Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey put out by the Dallas Fed, whose expectations stayed strong throughout the hurricanes. This survey has the shortest history of the group just going back to 2004 and covers the state of Texas. The data, which was collected well after Harvey, October 17-25, shows just how unfazed and upbeat manufacturers are.

Part of the strength of future expectations in the Dallas District is from the explosive growth in oil exports. Port capacity and the export supporting infrastructure is already being stressed at current levels and will soon need to be upgraded. These upgrades along with maintaining normal domestic production will all help to strengthen business activity in the region and dramatically increase CapEx spending.

Moving on to the Richmond Fed’s Fifth District Survey of Manufacturing Activity which covers Virginia, Maryland and The Carolina’s and dates back to 1993, we see a similar story of strength in future expectations. The Richmond survey doesn’t have a future component for its general index, so the new orders component has been substituted. Again, we see a data series moving towards its highs that would still need a lengthy reversal period before approaching recession levels.

Rounding out the group, we have the New York Fed’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey which goes back to 2001. The data here reflects the same trend we’ve seen in all the other regions, which is that manufacturers are upbeat about the future.

It can be seen in the above charts that the strong forward guidance being presented this earnings season so far is corroborated by strong domestic expectations.

Given the strong business expectations at a regional level and what we are hearing from the heads of major international firms, it looks like it’s full speed ahead as we head into the end of the year. As of Friday’s close, the S&P was trading at 21.6x blended Q3 trailing twelve month operating earnings. Based on current Q4 earnings estimates (as provided by S&P) and today’s multiple, the S&P would be trading at 2,722 in early 2018. Given the strengthening of the global economy, we could certainly see multiples expand from here as investor sentiment picks up. During the 1997-2000 bull market run, the S&P 500 traded at an average of 25x operating earnings. Considering that the technology boom of today is being driven by actual earnings and not just clicks, this market just might also get what it wants.

As we get further into fall, a period that people consider particularly worrisome for markets as ghosts of the crash of ‘87, the Asian financial crisis of ‘97 and Lehman Brothers come back to haunt investors’ memories, it becomes very easy to lose sight of the factors that brought markets this far. That loss of clarity is then compounded by natural disasters like hurricanes Harvey and Irma and man-made ones like Kim Jong Un and terrorism. Yet, even with all these negative situations, stocks have continued to climb their proverbial wall of worry as the S&P 500 just finished at a weekly all-time high of 2502. So as markets sit at highs and pundits continue to pitch fear and the “late cycle” narrative, the data tells a different story.

The first item up for discussion, and something which is a pillar of all economic expansions and bull markets, is employment. While many different metrics exist for gauging the health of the labor market, the initial claims series is the most useful one with its hard data basis and near real time frequency. Unemployment claims data is an excellent gauge of changes in highly cyclical industries as claims are often a lifeline for many workers when a job ends. Looking at the long-term history of claims and assuming that the economy has reached most economist’s nirvana of “full employment” at various times since 1980, it’s safe to say that the labor market is indeed healthy.

Then looking at what claims could do as we move forward, we can look at the data in the context of job openings to see a relationship that looks set to drive claims data even lower.

Having job openings at an all-time high certainly bodes well for future labor market health.

So with a solid employment situation in place, the focus shifts to business activity. Healthy and sustainable business activity is the key to keeping employment high and the economic expansion in place. That said, just last week we got several key data points that showed business activity progressing quite well.

On Thursday, we got the highly regarded Philadelphia Fed manufacturing survey which saw nearly all of its components move up in September. The Philly Fed survey, along with its other regional members, provide a valuable and informed view of local economic situations around the country. September’s survey, which includes responses up to the 18^th, saw a marked rise in new orders, shipments, and prices paid/received. The new orders component, which hit 29.5 in September versus its 2017 and lifetime averages of 25.9 and 9.4 respectively, is showing significant strength.

With new orders in a solid position, there would need to be a significant and prolonged downturn before even entertaining the notion of a recession.

Complimenting the Philly Fed data was the NY Fed’s Empire State Manufacturing survey which also showed healthy activity for September. The survey, which includes most data collected up till the 10^th, saw both its general business and new orders components come in near cycle highs.

The report also saw upticks in its employment and prices components which helped drive those series towards cycle highs as well. We’ll get a look at more regional data this week when the Dallas, Richmond and Kansas City Feds all publish their reports.

On Friday, we got a look at manufacturing and services data in the Markit Flash reports for the Eurozone and the U.S. In the European data, we really couldn’t have gotten a more bullish report. The manufacturing PMI came in at 58.2, near a seven year high while the services component came in at 55.6 up slightly from August. Highlighting the overall strength of the Markit data were gains in its new orders and employment components. The report also cited significant employment gains and increased business confidence for the area. All in all, the report shows a level of activity such that the European economic situation should no longer be described as a recovery, but more so as being recovered.

In the U.S. report, data also showed healthy levels of activity in manufacturing and services with the services side resuming its leading role. The services sector saw healthy gains in new orders and employment while manufacturing was a bit subdued in comparison. Corroborating the rising prices seen in the regional Fed data, the Markit report cited the composite (both manufacturing and services) having its highest cost levels since June 2015 with manufacturing input prices hitting their highest levels since December 2012. Given the significant gains seen in manufacturing activity since late 2016, it’s understandable to see a slight deceleration now. The main takeaway here is that growth and a healthy level of business activity are occurring in the most important and largest sector of the economy, services.

All of the above data have contributed to companies being able to generate the strong economic activity and earnings to get markets to these levels. All these positive economic events are now helping to drive Q3 earnings and sales estimates higher as FactSet puts forth in their September Insight report. Looking at the market at a historical valuation guidance, we can see that on an earnings multiple basis, we are not in uncharted territory.

In fact, if we were to see current S&P Q3 and Q4 earnings estimates realized at today’s multiple, the S&P would finish the year at 2743, making for a very happy ending to this year’s market story.

“Late cycle” is one of the most frequently used terms in financial media for describing the current state of equity markets, the overall economy and the imminent likelihood of recession. While “late cycle” is a term that invokes credibility and financial acumen of those who use it, it also reflects some behavioral biases that can lead to poor investment decisions. Behavioral biases are concepts that seek to explain why investors make decisions that don’t always follow the most likely economically advantageous path and are also part of a branch of economics known as Behavioral Finance.

In this case, “late cycle” represents a familiar and credible term that has an established place in financial jargon from work done by the National Bureau of Economic Research who also officially determines when recessions begin, end and thus measures the length of business cycles. According to NBER data, since World War II, the average business cycle has lasted about 6 years. It’s this 6-year assumption that permeates through financial analysis and has taken on significant meaning with investors primarily from its prevalent use in financial media. Because the 6-year time frame rests so well in investor’s minds, it’s easy for it to be given a greater probability of success than it deserves and can sway investment views towards an irrational outcome. In behavioral finance terms, this is called conservatism bias and it’s a situation in which investors hold on to prior beliefs and fail to change those beliefs when new information has been presented. This bias can also result in investors tending to overestimate unlikely events while underestimating the likely ones. So, while the “late cycle” assumption gets more attention and seems to make a plausible argument as to why a recession (the unlikely event) is imminent, it’s actually a continued expansion (the likely event) that is justified by the current economic data.

Before getting to the economic data that supports a continued expansion, we can look at the NBER data itself and take issue with the 6-year cycle assumption. The period that the assumption is based on is a time in which the economy also made a significant transition from a manufacturing and exports base to a services and consumption base. This transition has allowed for expansions to be more sustainable as internally driven consumption is less susceptible to exogenous economic shocks and makes for longer cycles. That said, if we group the existing NBER cycles to reflect this transition, a transition which is also supported by the dramatic growth in services employment, we can see how the average business cycle is significantly lengthened.

Adjusting for the transition to a services based economy, business cycle length has more than doubled and is set to get even longer as the economy becomes more services and consumption based. The key takeaway here and the best way to manage behavioral biases is to stay focused on the actual data. It’s the data that determines when a recession happens, not the calendar.

Moving on to the current economic data that supports a continued expansion, we have employment and business activity at the forefront. While economists throughout the street debate whether we are at full employment or not (my view is that we are), the fact remains that unemployment remains historically low. Weekly unemployment claims, which are an excellent proxy for the abundance or lack of cyclical work, are down at levels not seen since the 1970’s. When businesses that are most susceptible to economic slowdowns begin to experience a drop in business and let employees go, it is seen almost immediately in unemployment claims data. This is because unemployment benefits are a lifeline for people who work in these cyclical industries and are claimed as needed. An important aspect of claims data is that it is hard data which is based on the actual number of people needing assistance unlike the survey based data that drives most other labor market metrics and are susceptible to statistical errors. That said, as shown in the chart below, there has been no significant prolonged uptick in unemployment claims this cycle.

In an effort to try and project where unemployment claims might be headed, we can look at them in the context of job opportunities that are available as presented in the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). JOLTS is also known to be one of Fed Chair Yellen’s favorite labor market metrics so it certainly warrants attention. By plotting job openings against claims data, we can see how the two series have fed off each other in past cycles and how record high job opening amounts are allowing claims to keep grinding lower.

When we truly are late in the cycle and business is softening, I would expect to see a collapse in the spread between the two series as has happened in previous recessions. As the chart shows, there is quite a bit of territory to cover before the two series reverse.

At this point in the expansion, when labor market health is not a concern, business activity takes on added importance. It’s healthy business activity that supports employment and in turn the expansion, so it’s something that needs to be monitored closely. For a services based economy like the U.S., the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) provides the best metrics of services industries in its Non-Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® survey (NMI). ISM has been collecting services data since 1997 and has a robust data set to use for gauging the strength of services business activity.

As can be seen in the table, 2017 activity is outperforming its lifetime average and a comparable expansionary / bull market period in 3 of the 4 NMI components with the laggard being supplier delivery times. Supplier delivery times is also a questionable component at this point because of the advances in shipping logistics that has sped up supply-chain processes but is nevertheless still a component of the NMI.

Not only do we have strength in services, but the manufacturing side of the economy has also picked up in 2017. In fact, manufacturing activity in the U.S. and in Europe has picked up significantly in 2017 as seen in the Markit Manufacturing PMI data which shows that both regions are well in expansionary territory. The most recent May readings had the Eurozone Flash Manufacturing PMI at 58.4, a six year high, while the U.S. came in at 52.5, much improved from May 2016’s reading of 50.5. As the data is showing, the economy is on solid ground and not teetering on the brink of recession as the “late cycle” thesis implies.

All this is not to say that the data which I have cited here can’t be interpreted as reaching an exhausted stage or as topping out which would be a characteristic of a “late cycle” scenario. It clearly can be. However, when we take all the data in the context of the Trump administration and its significant pivot towards business-friendly policies, a foundation has been laid for future economic expansion. Also, the comparison of the current environment to the 1997-2000 period which ended in the bursting of the infamous tech bubble could certainly be interpreted as ominous. Except, this time around, we are not discussing cash burn rates of various companies because firms today are actually making money, and lots of it, in certain cases. Putting all this together, I would say it’s more likely that this “late cycle” narrative ends up being a virtuous cycle for several years to come.

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/04/12/2017/darden-excels-keeping-it-simple

Appetizer

Keeping things simple is typically one of the best and most consistent ways to make money in business, and Darden Restaurants (DRI) has figured out how to do just that while still serving up large portions of high-quality earnings.

DRI reported fantastic third-quarter earnings recently that beat on both the top and bottom lines while the company also raised its guidance for 2018 (DRI’s fiscal year ends in May). The company also announced an acquisition of Cheddar’s Scratch Kitchen for $780 million in cash, which is expected to add to earnings per share in 2018 with those additional earnings doubling in 2019. The transaction will be financed with a combination of DRI’s existing cash of $391 million, its existing credit facility and possibly new debt.

Regardless of the sources of financing, thanks to DRI’s low existing debt, the new financing will leave DRI well within management’s desired leverage position. Since the 2014 divestiture of Red Lobster and the recently completed real estate transaction (DRI converted 424 properties to a REIT and received the proceeds) that allowed DRI to pay down a significant amount of debt, the company has become a lean and well-financed portfolio of brands that are leaders in the casual and fine-dining space. In fact, in the third-quarter earnings conference call, CEO Gene Lee emphasized how committed DRI is to simplifying its business through its decentralized platform that allows the brand presidents to stay focused on their respective businesses. The brands can then use Darden’s size and resources as leverage with suppliers and to better manage each brand’s human capital.

While DRI management is focused on delivering great service and value to its customers, I’d like to look at how DRI is delivering value to its shareholders through its excellent financial position and growing revenues.

Main Course

When looking at a business, people often focus on typical return measures like return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA) and multiples based ratios like price to earnings, which can all tell you something informative about the business but also have drawbacks in their constructs. For example, P/E ratios tend to be lower for companies with higher debt-to-equity ratios since more debt means less earnings are available to equity holders, but the business could still be well run and creating value.

Then we have ROE and ROA metrics, which include significantly sized non-operating items like pension assets and equity interests in other companies, which don’t help with the day-to-day revenue generation of the core business. Also, net income, the numerator in ROE and ROA, is usually not adjusted for one-off items that aren’t indicative of the underlying business, which causes the ratios to give a misleading view of the core business.

For those reasons, a properly constructed return on invested capital (ROIC) becomes such an important metric. ROIC is designed to focus on the core aspects of the underlying business and the value it generates. Then, ROIC can be measured against a company’s cost of capital to show just how much value a business is really generating.

Without getting too heavily into the accounting involved in calculating ROIC, just understand that the goal is to have a numerator (return) and a denominator (invested capital) that are both derived from the core operations of the business. In the table below, I have calculated the ROIC for DRI and its main competitors. Along with ROIC, there is each company’s weighted average cost of capital (WACC), invested capital (investments needed to run the core business) and the economic profit (a cash flow metric that combines a company’s size with its ability to earn a return above the cost of generating that return).

The table also looks at ROIC without intangibles, which is a way to look at a company without its acquisition history and gives a more accurate picture of the core assets of the business. As you can see, DRI outperforms all but one of its peers in terms of ROIC (2016 w/o), but is clearly the dominant company in terms of actual economic profit generated. The table also presents an excellent exercise in showing how the market treats the differences in the composition of ROIC.

We can see DineEquity (DIN) has a very high ROIC without intangibles, but a declining ROIC with intangibles. This is a result of DIN’s declining operating profits combined with the accounting treatment of its Applebee’s franchise. In short, DIN has complex accounting issues that are being compounded by declining sales, which is why it trades around a trailing 10 P/E versus DRI, which trades around 21 (including the quarter just reported). DRI’s wise “keeping it simple” approach shows in its growing ROIC (especially relative to its peers) and supports its best-of-breed position in the restaurant industry.

This is not to say ROIC is the ultimate metric to be used for company valuations, but when it’s calculated properly and used along with other metrics, it provides excellent insight into how a company is running its business and how the market rewards its overall performance.

Dessert

The argument against Darden and the restaurant industry in general has been the usual bear case that the consumer is struggling and that people in general are choosing to stay at home more. Given DRI’s excellent earnings and the strong consumer confidence data we have gotten, it’s safe to say consumer health is not an issue. However, there are trends in the marketplace that do show a consumer preference for the stay-at-home experience, which has also been a major theme highlighted by Jim Cramer on Mad Money.

In response to this stay-at-home trend, CEO Lee specifically stated on the third-quarter call that Darden is aware of consumers wanting to drive less and that the company is making an effort to bring the dining experience closer to its customers. Darden can establish this through better-located properties along with enhanced takeout and delivery options, so it does have choices.

The bottom line here is that Darden is adapting to customer trends, as can be seen in its above-industry sales growth. I suspect that as the economy continues to do well, Darden will be eating its competitors’ lunches while investors continue to dine on its excellent earnings.

In celebration of Darden’s great earnings today and the stock being up 5% , I thought I’d repost this…Originally written in April…To reiterate things..I am still very much bullish the economy and the market. Yesterdays ISM manufacturing data supports the rebound from the August slowdown. 10/4/2016