Author Archives: Scalper1

From The Studs Up: Building (And Rebuilding) A Portfolio With MPT

An optimal investment portfolio contains assets intended to show well in the light and in the dark. That means it’s built to suit for your risk tolerance and target time frame, for moments of market clarity and uncertainty. We’re talking about modern portfolio theory (MPT), which aims to optimize potential returns for nearly any given risk. Modern portfolio theory has a fresh-sounding resonance, but it’s a 63-year-old investing model structured on three elements: asset allocation, diversification, and periodic rebalancing . At its roots, MPT is a basic investing model – and by now a fundamental one – that embraces diversification and equilibrium while sticking to a measured regime of the classic buy low/sell high. “The idea is that by sticking to that kind of discipline, you can ride out the down markets by staying diversified, and not making rash moves when the market is going up significantly or pulling back,” says John Bell, director of guidance platforms and tools at TD Ameritrade. For example, asset classes whose prices go sharply higher tend to become overweighted and could warp the balance. “If you’re consistently rebalancing back to a target, in general you will be selling the assets that are most highly valued and overpriced, and buying those things that are undervalued and underpriced,” Bell adds. “Buy low/sell high is what rebalancing allows you to do without attempting to introduce biases into your analysis. The beauty of calendar-based rebalancing is there’s nothing more magical about it other than enforcing some discipline,” he says. Mix of Materials Modern portfolio theory was first penned in 1952 by economist and Nobel Prize laureate Harry Markowitz, who used mathematics to support his theory that you can minimize risk and maximize returns by holding a combination of asset classes that aren’t correlated to each other and that align with your personal appetite for risk as well as your age . In other words, with MPT, you spread the risk among assets that don’t typically behave in the same way. It all boils down to these three components: Asset allocation. Investment products span asset classes that might include stocks, bonds, cash, real estate, international holdings, and emerging markets. Ideally (although this isn’t always the case), each asset class performs differently over time and has different levels of risk. For instance, equities typically have higher risk than fixed-income products, but the return is generally greater over time. Diversification. MPT disciples choose assets that don’t correlate to each other, like oil and food, or technology and apparel, domestic versus foreign, large cap versus small cap, and so on. Rebalancing. Consider regular realignment of a portfolio to the target asset allocation already in place. Certain stocks in your portfolio, for example, might soar and upend your targets. Rebalancing allows you to get back on task and, MPT proponents argue, tends to lower the portfolio’s risk. Check Emotions at the Door Why such lasting power for MPT? Because self-control practiced through rebalancing manages two emotions that typically prompt investors to make bad decisions: greed and fear. “Human behavior sometimes trumps logic and sound thinking,” Bell says. “People tend to buy at the absolute worst time and sell at the absolute worst time. Discipline takes the human emotion part out.” But MPT is not bullet-proof. It’s aimed at helping you dodge what’s called “undiversifiable” risk, or what happens when you have all your investment eggs in one asset-class basket and that class stumbles. If all your money was tied up in stocks in 2008, you likely lost a big chunk of change. Wealth Accumulation MPT also follows a basic school of thought about accumulating and keeping wealth. In your 20s, when you have decades of investing before you, conventional wisdom urges taking more risks, perhaps investing more heavily in equities than fixed income in your portfolio weightings. The assumption is that you have time to recover from a harrowing market event that could wipe out 50% of your portfolio. Remember 2008? But if you’re in your 60s, when time has snuck up on you, MPT says it’s best to protect your wealth by taking a more conservative approach without swaying too far from your goals. Those who ran for the hills and converted equities to cash in 2008 probably missed the bull market that followed. MPT cannot – and does not claim to – eliminate “systematic” risk, or what happens when the entire market takes a tumble. But it can soften the blow. Rather than suffering a 50% loss along with the stock-market crash of 2008, a well-balanced portfolio may have set you back only 25% or sometimes less. “You’ll very rarely ever be at the top or the bottom of a broad group of asset classes, but most likely in the middle. That makes sense, because you have a mix of all the asset classes,” Bell says. Disclaimer: TD Ameritrade, Inc., member FINRA/SIPC. TD Ameritrade is a trademark jointly owned by TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. and The Toronto-Dominion Bank. Commentary provided for educational purposes only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results or investment success. Options involve risks and are not suitable for all investors. Please read Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options before investing.

El Paso Electric: Fairly Valued, No Significant Upside

Summary We initiate coverage on El Paso Electric with a Neutral rating and TP of $40. The TP is based upon company’s future financial performance and historical valuation against industry peers. Current political situation in El Paso may cause challenges in reaching a settlement with the PUCT. Thus, the company would have to face uncertainty related to litigation. PVR anticipates the regulators of Texas and New Mexico to finally allow the significant increase in rate base. However, the current stock price is not including uncertainty related to regulatory. EE would have to apply for relief in rates in challenging jurisdictions as a result of new generation investment. Plain Vanilla Research ((NYSE: PVR )) initiates coverage on El Paso Electric Co. (NYSE: EE ) with a Neutral rating and a target price ((TP)) of $40. Since September, the stock price of El Paso Electric has outperformed the Utilities Sector by 7.28 percentage points (ppts). This is shown in the chart below: (click to enlarge) However, we think that the performance is not sustainable in the future as the company is facing challenges on multiple fronts. This restricts the stock from offering significant upside potential. In addition to that, a dividend yield of only 3% is not very attractive to tempt dividend investors. We will be discussing the challenges below: 1. Political Circumstances In El Paso In the past, proceedings related to change in rate base in El Paso have been engulfed with politics a lot. The company can be anticipated to face an interesting stance from the City Council officials as they will try to create challenges for the company to reach a settlement agreement. Furthermore, the supporters of solar-powered energy have also entered the arena as the publicly-listed corporation is trying to create alterations in rate design, which would cause installers of rooftop solar panels to make a partial requirements fee payment. Instead of reaching a settlement with the City Council authorities, we think the company should play the long game and wait for a decision from the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUCT). Although, the road is long and would result in higher uncertainty but it will result in a more favorable decision for the organization. 2. Approval From Texas And New Mexico Regulatory Authorities We anticipate that the regulatory authorities of Texas and New Mexico will allow the significant increase in rate base at the end. However, the current stock price reflects that investors expect the regulatory authorities to allow the increase in rate in any case. We think that slight hindrance in regulatory approval will result in the stock price on a downward trajectory. Texas is responsible for contributing roughly three-fourth to El Paso Electric’s bottom line. Meanwhile, the remaining contribution is from the state of New Mexico. 3. Demand For Rate Relief Requests In Challenging Jurisdictions El Paso has the finished the construction of two peaking units located at the Montana Power Station (MPS). In addition to that, the company will be finished with the construction of the third unit by spring of next year and by year-end, the company intends to complete the construction of the fourth unit. The four units are natural-gas powered and will have a capacity of 352 megawatts ((NYSE: MW )). These units are built to cater the increasing requirement of electricity in El Paso’s service territory. Montana plant and support infrastructure is anticipated to have a cost of $375 million. The company has been lucky to experience an annual growth rate of 1% to 1.5% for the past several years in the service territory. Normally, the industry has been seeing flat or decline in power consumption. Derivation Of Price Objective PVR has based its target price (TP) of $31 at earnings per share ((NYSEARCA: EPS )) of $2.67 along with a forward P/E multiple of 15.39x. The following forecasted income statement reflects as how we have arrived at our 2018 EPS. Currently, El Paso Electric’s stock is exchanging hand at PVR’s forward price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of 15.44x. In the past three-years, the stock has traded at an average forward P/E multiple of 14.94x. This reflects that the stock is trading at a premium of 6.5% against its three-year average forward P/E multiple of 14.94x. (click to enlarge) Meanwhile, against its peers’ combined forward P/E multiple of 12.23x, El Paso Electric’s stock is presently trading at a premium of 26.2%. In the past three years, the stock has traded at an average premium of 22% against its peers’ combined forward P/E. (click to enlarge) We have arrived at our target forward P/E multiple for El Paso Electric by calculating the three-year average forward P/E multiple of 12.24x for the combined industry peers. After that, we have applied the three-year historical premium of 22% to the historical average peers’ combined forward P/E multiple to reach El Paso Electric’s target forward P/E multiple of 14.93x. We have formulated the peers forward P/E multiple by combining our forward P/E ratios of Consolidated Edison (NYSE: ED ), PG&E Corporation (NYSE: PCG ), PNM Resources Inc (NYSE: PNM ), American Electric Power Company Inc (NYSE: AEP ) and Xcel Energy Inc (NYSE: XEL ) along with El Paso Electric. We have given their respective P/E weight according to their market capitalization.

Finding Value With The Piotroski F-Score: Results

The final results of the Piotroski F-Score experiment. The portfolio lost half of its value mainly due to the fall in the price of oil. The experiment wasn’t a total failure. It has been a year since I began my Piotroski F-Score experiment (Finding Value With The Piotroski F-Score). Unfortunately, the results of the experiment are less than impressive, although the unexpected collapse in the price of oil is partially to blame. You can find the first part of this series, which explains the methodology behind the F-score, as well as an initial summary for each company, here . The second part, assessing the portfolios performance up to the beginning of February can be found here. Part three. Part four. The thesis behind my F-Score experiment was simple. The Piotroski F-Score was designed to hunt out value opportunities that are profit-making, have improving margins, don’t employ any accounting tricks and have improving balance sheets . As a contrarian value investor, I was interested in seeing how this strategy performed in the real world. It is both a way to discover value stocks and trade them without fundamental analysis, the screening criteria and investments are based purely on the financials (something Benjamin Graham recommended). Piotroski recommended scoring the bottom 20% of the market in terms of price to book value and rating these companies based on how many F-Score criteria they passed. The criteria looked at points such as leverage, liquidity, profitability and operating efficiency. One point is awarded for each criterion the company passes and the stocks that score the highest, eight, or nine are regarded as being the strongest candidates for recovery. Using the following system, Piotroski’s April 2000 paper Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers, demonstrated that the Piotroski score method would have seen a 23% annual return between 1976 and 1996 if the expected winners were bought and expected losers shorted. This time last year I selected 20 companies that passed Piotroski’s criteria and were, at the time of initial investment, trading below book value per share. I constructed a hypothetical portfolio investing $1,000 in each company excluding commissions. The positions were based on financial data only with no weighting to fundamental factors. The companies selected were: Noble (NYSE: NE ), Ternium SA (NYSE: TX ), Unit (NYSE: UNT ) Ocean Rig (NASDAQ: ORIG ), CYS Investments (NYSE: CYS ), Pacific Drilling (NYSE: PACD ), Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc (NYSE: HOS ), OM Inc. (NYSE: OMG ), Speedy Motorsports (NYSE: TRK ), Gulfmark Offshore Inc (NYSE: GLF ), Schnitzer Steel Industries Inc (NASDAQ: SCHN ), Bill Barrett (NYSE: BBG ), Penn Virginia (NYSE: PVA ), Steel Excel Inc (OTCQB: SXCLD) McClatchy Co (NYSE: MNI ), Ducommun Inc (NYSE: DCO ), Vantage Drilling Co (NYSEMKT: VTG ), Nuverra Environmental (NYSE: NES ), Willis Lease Finance (NASDAQ: WLFC ) and Ellington Residential Mortgage (NYSE: EARN ). How did the portfolio perform? (click to enlarge) Values taken after market close 11/20/2015. A 49.32% loss in 12 months is a terrible performance. Dividends received over the period totaled $61.20, although these cash payments didn’t do much to soften the blow. OM Group was taken p rivate by Apollo Global . It’s clear that turbulent oil markets were to blame for this underperformance. There’s no way the strategy could have identified or prevented the carnage in the oil sector over the past year or so. And there is no reason to give up on the F-Score after just one year of poor returns, so I’m going to continue the experiment for another year but make several adjustments. A new crop of stocks will be selected using the same criteria as the ones that qualified last year. However, this time around I’m also going to short hypothetically the 20 worst stocks — as the original F-Score study suggested. Moreover, I’m going to run another portfolio alongside the one described above which will exclude all resource stocks. I’ll be publishing the details of these two portfolios over the next week. Editor’s Note: This article covers one or more stocks trading at less than $1 per share and/or with less than a $100 million market cap. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.