FT : Quality and growth ride the waves

Quality and growth ride the waves
Mike Mackenzie’s daily analysis of what’s moving global markets

Emergency measures that shut down economies and flood the financial system with money leaves investors facing a shortage of quality companies and those that are generating robust revenues.

Looking at equity markets via their broad levels misses an important aspect of what has been happening beneath the surface. There is a preference for security and that dovetails with the slumbering level of sovereign bond yields and crestfallen commodity prices. These market indicators paint a picture of weak economic activity and, at least initially, deflationary, rather than inflationary pressure.

Now, a number of readers are certainly worried about surging money supply in many countries as central banks have fired up their engines. Greater fiscal stimulus than what was seen after the financial crisis of 2009, may well spur a faster inflation pulse in time. Much rests on whether consumers and companies batten down and save a lot more once the pandemic passes. Such an outcome suggests an extended process of recovery and one that cuts across the chatter in some quarters about a new equity bull market.

What particularly worries some is the narrow leadership, led by tech, which on Tuesday in New York is on the defensive ahead of earnings from leading names over the coming few days (see Quick Hits). Typically, a narrow group of winners has in the past indicated the broad market is not far from a drop of some magnitude. The activist role of central banks has certainly prompted a sharp recovery in broad equity markets, but the lack of wider participation is worrisome. This suggests that expectations of an economic recovery that lifts cyclical sectors is not in place, only that central banks have placed a floor under asset prices.

Over at Unigestion they note:

And as Société Générale highlights here, four-tenths of blue-chip tech Nasdaq 100 stocks sit above their 100-day moving average, in contrast to far lower figures for other US equity benchmarks.
In turn, the divergence in performance is also stark, with the Nasdaq 100 close to flat on the year, whereas small and mid-cap benchmarks are off by a quarter. As shown here, a ratio of the Nasdaq 100 to the Russell 2000 is trending towards the peak that was notched at the turn of the century. This is where expectations of rising defaults and downgrades in high yield and for plenty of fallen angels in the lower echelon of investment grade (the weighty triple B-rated club) are blowing back into equities.

Now, many readers with long memories may look at this and think a sell signal is flashing for tech and growth stocks. There is also a tendency to fight previous battles and the current positioning seen in equities reflects expectations of a lacklustre recovery that distinguished the path taken by the economy during the post-financial crisis era.

Herding is a regular component of markets, but among companies, the ranks of thoroughbreds are thinning. Here via Goldman Sachs, they highlight the divide between companies in the MSCI World Equity index generating revenues or top-line growth beyond 8 per cent, versus those that can’t eclipse 4 per cent, or what they describe as “a simple definition of high versus low growth”.

Goldman’s portfolio strategy team led by Peter Oppenheimer notes:

Over in Europe and away from the US Fangs club of big tech, Goldman identify the “Granolas”, a group of companies with “relatively strong balance sheets, low volatility growth and good dividend yields, around 2 per cent-2.5 per cent”. They include a mix of healthcare, consumer staples and tech: GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, ASML, Nestlé, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, L’Oréal, LVMH, AstraZeneca, SAP and Sanofi.


It will certainly require evidence of a V-shaped economic recovery to ignite demand for cyclical and value stocks. The signal here is an appreciable rise out of negative territory for real yields, which in the past (briefly last year from August) has triggered a rotation from growth towards stocks that are more geared towards a better tone in the underlying economy. That may well arrive and spur another big value trade at the relative expense of growth.

John Higgins at Capital Economics says the US tech “mega-caps will have some success in consolidating their positions as the world slowly gets back to normal, provided they can avoid an antitrust backlash. However, we would be surprised if their shares continued to outperform so much then.”

But at this moment, investors are not really buying the end of equity market leadership from technology companies, particularly when they are benefiting from an acceleration in digital trends from the pandemic, such as working from home, greater use of cloud services, and online shopping among others, which is explored in this FT Markets Insight.
That leaves US tech and European Granolas topping their list of long-term winners.

>>> US Close Dow -0.13% S1P -0.52% Nasdaq -1.40% Russell +1.26%

Closing Stock Market Summary

The S&P 500 declined 0.5% on Tuesday in a mixed session. Large-cap technology and health care stocks lagged, while reopening enthusiasm continued to flow into the small-cap Russell 2000 (+1.3%) and S&P MidCap 400 (+1.0%). The Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 0.1%, while the Nasdaq Composite fell 1.4%. 

The day started with broad gains that lifted the S&P 500 as much as 1.5% shortly after the open, as part of the reopening momentum from Monday. That broad momentum quickly dissipated, presumably due to valuation concerns, but lingered in areas of the market that had underperformed when the shutdown angst was rampant. 

Some of those included the small-cap and mid-cap stocks, as previously noted, but also the cyclical S&P 500 energy (+2.2%), materials (+2.0%), industrials (+1.8%), and financials (+0.9%) sectors.

Conversely, the large-cap stocks that were deemed as relatively safe, and thus outperformed over the past few months, lost some of their appeal today and heavily dragged on the broader market. Those were found in the health care (-2.1%), communication services (-1.9%), and information technology (-1.4%) sectors. 

The health care space also had some negative catalysts despite the reported progress on the coronavirus front. For instance, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ 151.39, -2.90, -1.9%) was downgraded to Neutral from Buy at UBS, while Pfizer (PFE 37.91, -0.42, -1.1%) and Merck (MRK 81.18, -2.80, -3.3%) declined after reporting earnings. 

In other earnings news, shares of Caterpillar (CAT 115.46, +0.26, +0.2%), 3M (MMM 157.61, +3.96, +2.6%), and PepsiCo (PEP 136.32, +1.4%) finished higher, even after the companies withdrew full-year guidance, while shares of UPS (UPS 96.43, -6.12, -6.0%) faltered after the company missed profit estimates.

U.S. Treasuries reclaimed most of yesterday's losses, driving yields lower across the curve. The 2-yr yield declined three basis points to 0.20%, and the 10-yr yield declined five basis points to 0.61%. The U.S. Dollar Index declined 0.2% to 99.88. WTI crude declined 4.6%, or $0.60, to $12.37/bbl, although it was down as much as 22% at one point during the session. 

Reviewing Tuesday's economic data:

  • The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index for April plunged to 86.9 (consensus 86.5) from a downwardly revised 118.8 (from 120.0) for March. The April reading is the lowest since June 2014.
    • The key takeaway from the report is that consumers, while thinking positively about things reopening again, are still less optimistic about their financial prospects, which could be a headwind for spending activity during the recovery phase.
  • The advance goods trade deficit totaled $64.2 bln in March after a $59.9 bln deficit in February. Advance retail inventories declined 1.3% in March after decreasing 0.3% in February. Advance wholesale inventories decreased 1.0% in March after decreasing 0.7% in February.
  • The S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index for February increased 3.5% ( consensus 3.7%).

Looking ahead, investors will receive the advance estimate for Q1 GDP, Pending Home Sales for March, and the weekly MBA Mortgage Applications Index on Wednesday. 

  • Nasdaq Composite -4.1% YTD
  • S&P 500 -11.4% YTD
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average -15.6% YTD
  • Russell 2000 -22.0% YTD

>>> Ford Motor misses by $0.17, beats on revs

Ford Motor misses by $0.17, beats on revs (5.38 +0.21)
  • Reports Q1 (Mar) loss of $0.23 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.17 worse than the S&P Capital IQ Consensus of ($0.06); revenues fell 14.9% year/year to $34.32 bln vs the $31.73 bln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
  • Ford Credit delivered $30 million in first-quarter earnings before taxes, down $771 million from the same quarter a year ago. Strong portfolio performance was offset by about $600 million from increased credit-loss reserves, and higher depreciation on off-lease vehicles awaiting sale and anticipated operating lease defaults -- all reflecting estimated impact of the coronavirus in future periods.
  • In March, the company withdrew guidance for 2020 financial performance it had given in early February. That outlook excluded possible implications of the coronavirus, which at the time had not yet reached pandemic stage. According to CFO Stone, today's economic environment remains too ambiguous to provide full-year 2020 financial guidance. He said the company expects second-quarter adjusted EBIT to be a loss of more than $5 billion, as year-over-year industry volumes decline significantly in every region.
  • To maximize cash and preserve financial flexibility through and beyond the pandemic, Ford:
    • Is lowering operating costs, reducing capital expenditures and deferring portions of executive salaries.
    • Recently borrowed more than $15 billion from existing lines of credit, and this month issued $8 billion in unsecured bonds, and...
    • Suspended its regular quarterly dividend and antidilutive share repurchase program.

>>> Starbucks reports EPS in-line, beats on revs

Starbucks reports EPS in-line, beats on revs (78.69 +0.95)
  • Reports Q2 (Mar) earnings of $0.32 per share, excluding non-recurring items, in-line with the S&P Capital IQ Consensus of $0.32; revenues fell 4.9% year/year to $6 bln vs the $5.85 bln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
  • Global comparable store sales declined 10%, driven by a 13% decrease in comparable transactions, partially offset by a 4% increase in average ticket
    • Americas and U.S. comparable store sales declined 3%, driven by a 7% decrease in comparable transactions, partially offset by a 5% increase in average ticket
    • International comparable store sales were down 31%, driven by a 32% decline in comparable transactions, slightly offset by a 1% increase in average ticket; China comparable store sales were down 50%, with comparable transactions down 53%
  • "We have temporarily closed approximately 50% of our company-operated stores in the U.S., as well as more than 75% in Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom. In China, where our stores are company-operated, 98% are open but operating under modified schedules and enhanced safety-related protocols, including limited cafe seating. We expect China's sales to substantially recover with comparable store sales roughly flat to prior year levels at the end of fiscal year 2020. Currently, approximately 50% of our global licensed store portfolio is also closed, with higher levels of closure in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and lower levels of closure in Asia Pacific."
  • Guidance:
    • China comps: Q3 -25-35% and Q4 -10% to flat with FY being -15-25%
    • capex of ~$1.5 bln

>>> Mondelez Int'l beats by $0.03, beats on revs; withdraws full-year outlook

Mondelez Int'l beats by $0.03, beats on revs; withdraws full-year outlook
  • Reports Q1 (Mar) earnings of $0.69 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.03 better than the S&P Capital IQ Consensus of $0.66; revenues rose 2.6% year/year to $6.71 bln vs the $6.6 bln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
  • "We had a strong first quarter, with record market share gains, and executed very well in challenging circumstances, thanks to the dedication and commitment of our colleagues, especially those on the front line, who are working tirelessly to provide food to consumers around the world," said Dirk Van de Put, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "In the last month of the quarter, we saw a significant increase in consumer demand for our snacks in developed markets, particularly in North America, which more than offset a more challenging environment in several emerging markets.
  • Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, visibility is limited at this time in a number of markets, so the company is temporarily withdrawing its full-year outlook.

>>> FireEye beats by $0.02, beats on revs; guides Q2 EPS below c

Lattice Semi beats by $0.01, misses on revs; guides Q2 revs in-line
  • Reports Q1 (Mar) earnings of $0.15 per share, $0.01 better than the S&P Capital IQ Consensus of $0.14; revenues fell 0.8% year/year to $97.32 mln vs the $98.29 mln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
    • Gross margin increased to 59.8% from 58.6% one yr ago.
  • Co issues in-line guidance for Q2, sees Q2 revs of $95 mln to $105 mln vs. $100.88 mln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
    • Gross margin expected between 59% and 61%.

>>> FireEye beats by $0.02, beats on revs; guides Q2 EPS below c

FireEye beats by $0.02, beats on revs; guides Q2 EPS below consensus, revs below consensus; lowers FY20 outlook (11.42 -0.10)
  • Reports Q1 (Mar) loss of $0.02 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.02 better than the S&P Capital IQ Consensus of ($0.04); revenues rose 6.7% year/year to $224.72 mln vs the $221.65 mln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
  • Co issues downside guidance for Q2, sees EPS of ($0.03)-($0.01), excluding non-recurring items, vs. $0.02 S&P Capital IQ Consensus; sees Q2 revs of $213-217 mln vs. $221.76 mln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
  • Co issues downside guidance for FY20, sees EPS of $0.03-0.07, excluding non-recurring items, (from $0.20-0.24) vs. $0.17 S&P Capital IQ Consensus; sees FY20 revs of $880-900 mln (from $935-945 mln) vs. $915.20 mln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
  • On April 23, 2020, the Board of Directors of FireEye approved a restructuring plan to streamline the company's operations to more closely align expenses to the company's projected revenue, position the company for improved operating performance, and allow the company to increase investment in the growth areas of the business. The restructuring plan includes a reduction of approximately 6% of the company's workforce. FireEye expects the restructuring will reduce total non-GAAP operating expenses by at least $25 million in 2020 compared to 2019, and currently estimates that it will recognize pre-tax charges to its GAAP financial results of between $10 million and $15 million, consisting of severance and other one-time termination benefits, and other restructuring related costs. These charges are primarily cash-based, and are expected to be recognized in the second quarter of 2020. The actions associated with the restructuring plan are expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2020.

>>> Alphabet misses by $1.12, beats on revs; co "experienced a significant slowd

Alphabet misses by $1.12, beats on revs; co "experienced a significant slowdown in ad revenues" in March
  • Reports Q1 (Mar) earnings of $9.87 per share, $1.12 worse than the S&P Capital IQ Consensus of $10.99; revenues rose 13.3% year/year to $41.16 bln vs the $40.29 bln S&P Capital IQ Consensus.
  • "Our business, led by Search, YouTube, and Cloud, drove Alphabet revenues to $41.2 billion, up 13% versus last year, or 15% on a constant currency basis," said Ruth Porat, Chief Financial Officer of Alphabet and Google. "Performance was strong during the first two months of the quarter, but then in March we experienced a significant slowdown in ad revenues. We are sharpening our focus on executing more efficiently, while continuing to invest in our long-term opportunities."
--> +3% in After Hours

FT : Musk steps in to provide insurance for Tesla board

Musk steps in to provide insurance for Tesla board
Chief executive criticised over move to offer liability cover following premium increase

Elon Musk has stepped in to provide personal liability insurance for directors of electric carmaker Tesla, after premiums soared after recent legal claims against the board.

The unusual personal guarantee adds a twist to an unconventional boardroom relationship that has brought criticism from governance experts over the sway Mr Musk, Tesla’s founder and chief executive, has had over the way the company is run.

The personal insurance offer was made after Tesla said it had “determined not to renew its directors and officers liability insurance policy for the 2019-2020 year due to disproportionately high premiums quoted by insurance companies”.

Mr Musk had himself “agreed with Tesla to personally provide coverage substantially equivalent to such a policy for a one-year period”, the company said in a regulatory filing.

Tesla’s board has been the target of a number of legal actions claiming that it failed to maintain sufficient independence in controlling its impulsive chief executive.

Early this year, all the directors apart from Mr Musk agreed to provisionally settle a shareholder lawsuit over Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity, the clean energy company where Mr Musk was also a director. Tesla said the $60m settlement “would be entirely paid under the applicable insurance policy”.

Mr Musk was due to appear in his own defence in court in Delaware before the coronavirus crisis brought the case to a standstill. 

A federal court earlier this month cleared the way for another shareholder lawsuit against Tesla and its chief executive over Mr Musk’s claim, in a series of tweets in 2018, that he was close to taking the company private. The board and Mr Musk are also facing a trial next year stemming from a shareholder action over a pay award to Mr Musk that was valued in 2018 at $2.6bn.

The personal insurance policy from the chief executive drew immediate criticism from governance experts. 

“If [the directors’] job is to oversee him and he’s paying their insurance, that creates a relationship that threatens that,” said Charles Elson, a professor of corporate governance at the University of Delaware. “If he reneges on payment, what will that do to the relationship?”

Tesla said it did not believe the insurance offer threatened its boardroom independence because it was “intended to replace an ordinary course insurance policy”, and because the arrangement “is governed by a binding agreement with Tesla as to which Mr Musk does not have unilateral discretion to perform”.

The personal insurance was disclosed in a revised copy of Tesla’s annual report, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday. The company did not reveal the existence of the indemnification agreement in the first version of the report in February, even though Tesla said in the new filing that the one-year indemnification arrangement was put in place some time in 2019.