Tag Archives: author

Acceleration In The Underperformance Of Dividend And Value Stocks

The top 20% of SPY components in Dividend and Value have lagged the benchmark for 18 months. The last few weeks have been especially harmful for them. Momentum stocks have widely outperformed. This article compares the trends of four investing styles: Value, dividend, quality and momentum. It doesn’t suggest that investors should use these simplistic models, but it shows how stocks may be influenced by cycles, not only in asset classes and sectors but also in dominant investing styles. Large groups of S&P 500 stocks selected on value, dividend and quality factors have been lagging SPY since the third quarter of 2014. This phenomenon is not limited to small groups. It can be observed in the 100 best stocks of the index in each category. These categories are defined by taking the top 20% of the S&P 500 ranked on a unique factor. The top 20% of value stocks is defined as the 100 S&P 500 stocks with the lowest price/earnings ratio (P/E). The top 20% of dividend stocks is defined as the 100 S&P 500 stocks with the highest yield. The top 20% of quality stocks is defined as the 100 S&P 500 stocks with the highest return on equity (ROE). The top 20% of momentum stocks is defined as the 100 S&P 500 stocks with the highest price increase in one year. Variations in the relative performance of such large groups of stocks on long periods are the expression of behavioral changes in the market. My aim here is to observe and quantify these changes, not to explain them. The next charts show equity curves and statistics of the four “top 20%” groups for one month. The groups are updated and equal-weighted on market opening of the first trading day every week. Dividends are reinvested. Top 20% Value: (click to enlarge) Top 20% Dividend: (click to enlarge) Top 20% Quality: (click to enlarge) Top 20% Momentum (click to enlarge) The next table gives the annualized excess return over SPY of the top 20% group for each category since 1/1/2000, then on the last 12, 6, 3 and 1 months. Annualized excess return of the top 20% stocks in… Since 2000 Last 12 months Last 6 months Last 3 months Last month Value 6.60% -7.45% -16.30% -15.30% -27.76% Dividend 4.61% -7.31% -8.93% -9.55% -32.9% Quality 3.14% -4.29% -6.31% -12.94% -5.82% Momentum 1.12% 2.82% 5.24% -7.06% 8.49% Value stocks have outperformed for 16 years but they have lagged the benchmark since June 2014. The meltdown in energy companies is an incomplete explanation: It’s accountable for less than half of the negative excess return of value stocks. The relative loss of value stocks has accelerated in the last month. Dividend stocks also have lagged for at least one year. Their underperformance has accelerated considerably in the last month. It seems that expectations of a rate hike this week have made some dividend investors more nervous. Momentum stocks have outperformed their own historical excess return for at least one year. They started to lag in the last few months, but their excess return surged again in the last weeks. The transfer of excess return from value and dividend to momentum started more than one year ago and seems to continue. I have written in a previous article that such a pattern is not a reliable clue of a market top . Value and dividend offer a statistical bias on the long term, but in the short term investors following strategies based on these investing styles may experience more frustration before getting back their edge. Indeed, momentum stocks traditionally benefit from “window dressing” at the end of the year: some fund managers buy them to make their portfolios look better in annual reports. If you want to stay informed of my updates on this topic and other articles, click the “Follow” tab at the top of this article. Data: portfolio123

Ocean Power Technologies’ (OPTT) CEO George Kirby on Q2 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: OPTT ) Q2 2016 Earnings Conference Call December 15, 2015 10:00 AM ET Executives Shawn Severson – Blueshirt Group George Kirby – CEO Mark Featherstone – CFO Analysts Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Ocean Power Technologies’ Q2 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, today’s conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn this conference call to Shawn Severson with Blueshirt Group. You may begin. Shawn Severson Thank you and good afternoon. Thank you for joining us on OPT’s conference call and webcast to discuss the financial results for the three months ended October 31, 2015. On the call with me today are George Kirby, President and CEO; and Mark Featherstone, Chief Financial Officer. George will provide an update on the Company’s highlights for the quarter, key activities, and strategies, after which Mark will review the financial results for the second quarter. Following our prepared remarks, we will open the call for questions. This call is being webcast on our Web site at www.oceanpowertechnologies.com. It will also be available for replay later today. The replay will stay on the site for on-demand review over the next several months. Yesterday, OPT issued its earnings press release and filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with Securities and Exchange Commission. All of our public filings can be viewed on the SEC Web site at sec.gov or you may go to the OPT Web site, www.oceanpowertechnologies.com. During the course of this conference call, management may make projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events or financial performance of the Company within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions made by management regarding the future circumstances over which the Company may have little or no control that involves risks and uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We refer you to the Company’s Form 10-K and other recent filings with the SEC for a description of these and other risk factors. And now, I would like to turn the call over to George to begin the discussion. George Kirby Thanks, Shawn. Good morning, everyone. Today, I’ll review our business operations and provide an update on key activities and developments in the quarter. Following this, Mark will briefly review our financial results. After which, Mark and I will be available to answer any questions. So, let’s begin. First, we’re excited that the Company is continuing to execute on our objectives and achieving considerable progress on both the commercial and technical fronts. As announced in late October, we redeployed the APB-350 A1 power buoy off the coast in New Jersey and resumed sea trials. We also released select performance data gathered during A1’s initial deployment as well as initial results from the accelerated live testing of this redesigned PowerTakeoff system or PTO. Our goal is to provide reliable, durable, and cost effective offshore autonomous power solutions where current power solutions are either too costly or unavailable. The deployment of A1 was a milestone in our long term strategy to achieve this goal and gives us the opportunity to further develop and validate our APB-350 technology. Consistent with our strategy pivot, we also made considerable progress toward our next generation APB-350 product which we expect will feature an enhanced electrical storage system, a higher efficiency power management system and a user friendly interface providing even more flexibility to end users. I am excited to announce that this next generation buoy has undergone its critical design review and we expect that it will achieve a maturity level through extensive in ocean and factory accelerated life testing that will allow us to proceed with the commercial product launch in 2016. As we’ve mentioned before, we strongly believe that our APB-350 represents a very appealing solution which provides a robust and cost effective alternative to incumbent solutions that utilize batteries, solar, wind, and diesel power for offshore applications. As part of our efforts to demonstrate product reliability and durability, and to accelerate toward product commercialization, the Company initiated accelerated life testing on its redesigned APB-350 PTO in the second quarter. The OPT accelerated life testing process consist of operating PTOs in tandem with accelerated operating profiles. This subjects the PTOs to various load conditions which are encountered in extreme sea states. The test simulates an equivalent three year ocean deployment within a period of six to nine months using PTOs that are identical to those of the Company’s APB-350 A1. We intent to use accelerated life testing results to improve and to validate reliability which we believe is critical to our prospective customers. Furthermore as an important component of our commercialization strategy, OPT formed a technical advisory panel during the second quarter of fiscal year 2016. The panel was formed as part of our efforts to accelerate power buoy commercialization and it plays a critical role in developing and further improving our technology and products. The main objective of the panel is to facilitate the implementation of different power buoy applications coupled with specific market requirements. As we previously communicated to you, the panel consist of select potential customers and users and technical and scientific stakeholders, including Guardline Marine services, DNVGL, as well as represented from two major oil and gas operators, a large oil and gas equipment manufacturer and a leading meteorological and oceanographic sensor manufacturer. The University of Western Australia, Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, also participates on the panel by providing scientific advice related to marine subsea structures engineering. The panelists are reviewing and providing critical industry feedback on requirements and test protocols in order to increase our speed to market. This long term collaboration is initially focused on the APB-350 but it could also extend to future power buoy designs. Moving forward, we will continue to work closely with panel members to maximize the unique opportunities that this long term collaboration provides to us. We’re excited to continue to work with these highly acknowledged and experienced companies and we look forward to continuing to integrate industry feedback with our day to day operations. Additionally, in the second quarter we announced an agreement with Guardline Environmental to investigate the development of innovative metocean monitoring and maritime security systems together. Under this agreement, we will work closely with Guardline to investigate and then potentially develop, test, and market, advanced integrated solutions for end users in the ocean observing and defense and security markets. We are very excited about working together with Guardline who is a leader within the worldwide environmental services market. We strongly believe that Guardline’s 45 years of experience within environmental, meteorological and oceanic studies and hydrographic and geophysical surveys will leverage our technology to further develop innovative applications and solutions that offer potentially revolutionary improvement to incumbent operational practices. Lastly, given Board of Directors and shareholder approval, OPT completed a reverse stock split at a ratio of one share of newly issued common stock for every 10 shares of issued and outstanding common stock. With the stock split completed, we’re now in compliance with NASDAQ listing requirements, and we believe that there is significant untapped value in the current OPT stock price, which we’re intending to unlock through the commercialization of the APB-350. I’ll now turn it over to Mark who will review our financial results in the quarter. Mark? Mark Featherstone Thanks George and good morning everyone. I will now review results for the second quarter of 2016 before we open up the call for questions. For the three months ended October 31, 2015, OPT reported revenue of $25 million as compared to revenue of $1.7 million for the three months ended October 31, 2014. The decrease in revenues compared with the prior year was primarily related to the decreased billable cost on our project with Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding or MES and with our contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. The MES project is currently undergoing a stage-gate review with its project stakeholders. The net loss for the three months ended October 31, 2015 was $3.0 million compared to a net loss of $4.4 million for the three months ended October 31, 2014. The decrease in net loss is primarily due to lower selling, general and administrative expenses including reduced third party consulting, site development and patent amortization costs. During the three months ended October 31, 2015, we recovered product development costs from prior periods under our cost-sharing contract with the European Union for our WavePort project. In addition, the prior year included $0.3 million of gross loss due to a change in estimated project cost related to the MES contract. For the six months ended October 31, 2015, OPT reported revenue of $0.6 million as compared to revenue of $3.3 million for the six months ended October 31, 2014. The decrease in revenue is primarily related to decreased billable work for the DOE, WavePort and MES contracts. The net loss for the six months ended October 31, 2015 was $7.1 million, as compared to a net loss of $7.7 million for the six months ended October 31, 2014. The decrease in the Company’s net loss year-over-year primarily reflects increased estimated project costs associated with our contract with MES in the prior year period as well as reduced legal, third party consulting, site development costs and patent amortization expenses compared with the prior year period. These decreases were partially offset by higher product development costs related to our APB350 and PB40 projects. Turning now to the balance sheet. As of October 31, 2015, total cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities were $10.4 million, down from $14.2 million as of July 31, 2015. As of October 31, 2015 and July 31, 2015, restricted cash was $0.4 million and $0.5 million, respectively. Net cash used in operating activities was $7 million during the six months ended October 31, 2015 compared to $12.1 million for the six months ended October 31, 2014. The prior year reflects the return of $4.7 million related to an advance payment received from ARENA while the current year reflects costs related to increased deployment activity. As discussed in previous conference calls, we have taken a number of steps over the last several months to reduce our cash burn rate while increasing our technical, operating and business development resources. As such, we continue to project that our operating cash burn in fiscal 2016 will be lower than that in fiscal 2015 despite increased deployment activity in fiscal 2016. We remain confident in our cash position and we expect to have sufficient cash to maintain operations into at least the third quarter — calendar quarter of 2016 and we are currently exploring alternatives to raising additional capital. With that, I’ll turn it back to George before we open up the call for questions. George Kirby Thanks Mark. Before we move on to Q&A, I want to highlight a few compelling reasons to consider OPT. One, we believe we are the technology leader in wave energy conversion for offshore applications. Our technology provides a critical offshore power solution for a number of industries. Our technology focuses on driving down cost, improving reliability and durability, as well as broadening and enabling commercial applications. Also, we currently have been continuing to develop significant intellectual property around our technologies and applications. Two, we’re targeting large addressable markets including offshore oil and gas, ocean based communication and data gathering and security and defense. We’re also garnering what we believe to be significant interest from potential customers to develop power buoy applications, which could lead to solutions demonstrations and market launch. And lastly, we consider our staff to be world class and we have a solid leadership team in place at both the executive management and Board levels. We’re executing multiple power buoy deployments in order to further advance power buoy validation, which we believe will service as a near term market catalyst as we move closer to commercialization. So thank you for your support and time today. And operator, we’re now ready to take questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator George Kirby Well, thank you all once again for attending today’s call. If you do have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Otherwise, we look forward to speaking with you all next quarter. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

S&P 500 Valuation Dashboard – December Update

Summary 5 key fundamental factors are calculated across sectors. They are compared to historical averages. It results in a value score and a quality score for each sector. This article is part of a monthly series giving a valuation by sector of companies in the S&P 500 index (NYSEARCA: SPY ). I follow some fundamental factors for every sector and compare them to historical averages, so as to create a synthetic dashboard with a Value Score (V-score) and a Quality Score (Q-score). The choice of the valuation ratios has been justified here . The Q-score uses the Return on Equity (see why here ). In this series you can find numbers that may be useful in a top-down approach. There is no individual stock analysis or recommendations. You can refine your research reading articles by industry experts here . Methodology The median value of 4 valuation ratios is calculated for S&P 500 companies in each sector: Price/Earnings (P/E), Forward Price Earning for the current year (Fwd P/E), Price to sales (P/S), Price to free cash flow (P/FCF). It is compared to its own historical average Avg. The difference is measured in percentage (%Hist). For example, %Hist= 10 means that the current median ratio is 10% overpriced relative to its historical average in the sector. The V-score of a sector is the average of %Hist for the 4 factors, multiplied by -1, so that the higher is the better. The Q-score is the difference between the current median ROE (return on equity) and its historical average. Why and how using median values Median values are simpler than capital-weighted averages or aggregate ratios on each sector considered a mega company. They are also better reference data than averages for stock-picking. Each number in the table below is the middle point of a sector data set, which can be used to separate the good elements and the bad ones for the sector and the factor. Median values are also less sensitive to outliers than averages. A note of caution: for ETF investors, the most relevant valuation ratio would be the result of an aggregate calculation, neither a median value nor a capital-weighted average of individual stock factors. Example The next chart shows an example: the median P/E for all S&P 500 companies (updated on the week of publication). (click to enlarge) The latest value is compared to the average of the reference period to calculate %Hist. Sector valuation table on 12/14/2015 The next table reports the median valuation ratios. For example, the P/E column gives the current median value of P/E in each sector. The next “Avg” column gives its average between January 1999 and August 2015, which is my arbitrary reference of fair valuation. The next “%Hist” column is the difference between the historical average and the current value, in percentage. So there are 3 columns relative to P/E, and also 3 for each ratio. The first column “V-score” shows the value score as defined above. V-score P/E Avg %Hist Fwd P/E Avg %Hist P/S Avg %Hist P/FCF Avg %Hist All -18.48 21.15 19.18 10.27 16.6 14.83 11.94 2.16 1.58 36.71 28.41 24.7 15.02 Cons.Disc. -19.48 20.07 18.7 7.33 15.99 14.56 9.82 1.61 1.12 43.75 27.52 23.52 17.01 Cons.Stap. -31.01 25.6 20.48 25.00 19.57 16.27 20.28 2.33 1.54 51.30 50.06 39.28 27.44 Energy -7.36 20.31 17.8 14.10 25.89 14.38 80.04 1.48 1.94 -23.71 18.05 30.59 -40.99 Financials -36.60 18.19 16.16 12.56 14.77 12.38 19.31 2.81 2.03 38.42 21.59 12.26 76.10 Healthcare -6.04 27.92 23.76 17.51 16.3 16.85 -3.26 3.38 2.93 15.36 28.41 30.04 -5.43 Industrials -10.82 18.66 18.75 -0.48 16.15 14.52 11.23 1.47 1.24 18.55 29.25 25.66 13.99 I.T. & Tel. 2.22 24.79 27.16 -8.73 16.47 19.29 -14.62 3.17 2.72 16.54 25.48 26.02 -2.08 Materials -19.35 22.41 19.74 13.53 16.92 14.36 17.83 1.37 1.15 19.13 34.94 27.53 26.92 Utilities -27.66 17.63 15.21 15.91 15.81 13.15 20.23 1.63 1.11 46.85 Energy: P/FCF Avg starts in 2000 – Utilities: P/FCF not taken into account because of frequent outliers in this sector. V-score chart Sector quality table The next table gives a score for each sector relative to its own historical average. Here, only one factor is accounted. Q-score (Diff) Median ROE Avg All -0.50 14.43 14.93 Cons.Disc. 3.99 21.33 17.34 Cons.Stap. -2.86 21.2 24.06 Energy -14.14 0.75 14.89 Financials -2.38 9.93 12.31 Healthcare -4.71 12.89 17.6 Industrials 2.90 19.85 16.95 I.T. & Tel. 1.88 14.99 13.11 Materials 4.85 18.74 13.89 Utilities -2.25 9.1 11.35 Q-score chart Interpretation The S&P 500 looks overpriced by about 18.5% relative to the historical reference period. Since last issue’s statistics (11/10): SPY is down by more than 2.5%. Overpricing has increased by about 1%. Quality is stable globally and for every sector. 4 sectors have improved in valuation: Energy, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples and Industrials. The only attractive sector regarding these metrics is Technology (including Telecom). It looks underpriced and has a median ROE above the historical average. The least overpriced sector among the rest is Healthcare. The most overpriced sector is Financials. For Materials, Industrials and Consumer Discretionary, a quality factor better than the historical average can justify at least a part of the overpricing. If you want to stay informed of my updates on this topic and other articles, click the “Follow” tab at the top of this article. Data: portfolio123