Tag Archives: real estate

South Jersey Industries’ (SJI) CEO Mike Renna on Q4 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Operator Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2015 South Jersey Industries Earning Conference Call. My name is Lauren and I’ll be your operator for today. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Ann Anthony, Treasurer. Please proceed. Ann Anthony Thank you. Good morning and thank you for joining us as we present SJI’s fourth quarter and full year fiscal 2015 results, as well as an update on our business. Joining me on the call today are Mike Renna, President and CEO of SJI; along with Steve Clark, our CFO; and Jeff DuBois, President of South Jersey Gas; as well as Marissa Travaline, our Director of Investor Relations. We also have several additional members of our senior management team available to help address questions following our prepared comments. Our earnings release was issued to the media this morning and is also available on our Web site at www.sjindustries.com. This release and the associated 10-K provide an in-depth review of earnings on both the GAAP and to non-GAAP basis, using our non-GAAP measure of Economic Earnings. Reconciliations of Economic Earnings to the comparable GAAP measures appear in both documents. Let me note that throughout today’s call, we will be making references to future expectations, plans and opportunities for South Jersey Industries. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these statements, as a result of various important factors, including those discussed in the Company’s Form 10-K on file with the SEC. Please be reminded that our 2014 per share numbers have been adjusted to reflect the impact of the stock split that occurred in May of 2015. With that said, I will now turn the call over to our CFO, Steve Clark to present SJI’s fourth quarter and full year 2015 results. Steve Clark Thanks, Ann and good morning everyone. To begin, our full year 2015 Economic Earnings results totalled $99 million as compared with $104 million in 2014. Economic Earnings per share for 2015 were $1.44 as compared with the $1.57 for the prior year. For the fourth quarter of 2015, Economic Earnings totalled $43.2 million as compared with $31.2 million in the prior year period. Economic EPS for the fourth quarter of 2015 was $0.62 compared with $0.47 for the same period in 2014. Major driver of the year-over-year decline is the write-down of our investment in the energy facility of the former Revel Casino property in 2015 and related cost we incurred. This non-recurring event reduced Economic Earnings on a compared basis year-over-year by $15.7 million. OpEx totalled $11.1 million which is attributable to the write-off of our equity investment in the project and a reduction in operating income compared to the prior year period. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we also took an additional charge after-tax of $4.6 million resulting from a payment to the formal bondholders to settle all claims associated with the project. We are currently pursuing recovery of that payment from our financial and legal advisors, as well as our insurance carriers. We’ll recognize that recovery in the future period in which it occurs. We also restructured our Energy Project business at the end of 2015, distributing the assets held within Energenic, our energy project development joint venture among the partners. Later in the call we’ll provide more detail around this transaction which resulted in a onetime after-tax charge of $1.7 million. The charge was entirely due to recapture of investment tax credits associated with several of the projects we divested. Excluding these non-recurring items SJI’s Economic Earnings and Economic Earnings per share for 2015 would have improved by $17.4 million and $0.25 per share respectively. With that said, we did see some very strong operating performance within our business lines that reinforces our potential for significant earnings growth over the next five years. I’ll detail that information now as we review the performance of each for our business lines. Looking at the utility, South Jersey Gases’ earnings for the year remained stable at $66.6 million as compared with $66.5 million in 2014. Fourth quarter utility net income was $22.2 million as compared to $24 million for the same period of 2014. Earnings was attributable to significant infrastructure investment and strong customer growth, was offset by higher charges related to uncollectible accounts and post-retirement benefits, as well as investments made to improve customer service. As we discussed in the last call, extreme cold experienced in the past few winters produced significantly higher customer bills. Also during 2015, we revised upwards our reserve percentages for age receivables based upon a recent experience. These events resulted in increased aging of those receivables and ultimately increased reserves and write-offs for those receivables. The after-tax charges for our uncollectable receivables totalled $8.8 million for the full year of 2015 and $3.8 million for the fourth quarter. This compares to after-tax charges of $5.6 million and $3.4 million for the same periods in 2014. We continue to educate customers of ways to reduced usage, excess programs for assistance and take advantage of the various bill repayment options we offer. As I mentioned earlier, customer growth and infrastructure investments remain key drivers of current performance and will continue to benefit utility earnings in the future. During 2015, we added more than 6,200 customers, brining our current customer count to 373,100. During the same time period, customer growth added 2.2 million in incremental net margin as compared with the prior year period. High for our industry, this 1.7% customer growth rate is supported by low natural gas prices from abundant local supplies, aggressive efforts targeting conversions and a noteworthy increase in new construction, which accounted for 2,900 customers in 2015 that was up a little over 19% from 2014 results. Regarding investments in our gas system, we closed out 2015 with accelerated infrastructure investments totalling $70 million. AIRP, which replaces aging bare steel and cast iron gas mains throughout our system and the SHARP, which replaces low pressure gas mains along the barrier islands with high pressure mains helped to reinforce and better protect our system. These investments added an incremental $2.3 million of net income for the full year. Another major infrastructure initiative underway is the proposed pipeline to provide natural gas to the former BL England Electric generating station. We received final approval from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in December, allowing the project to proceed. While several outside parties have filed appeals to the decision, we remain optimistic that construction will begin on this project later this year. Now we’ll move to the non-utility side of our business, which is comprised of two segments, South Jersey Energy Services and South Jersey Energy Group. For the full year these segments added combined Economic Earnings of $31.5 million as compared to $37.6 million in 2014. For the fourth quarter, the non-utility businesses generated $20 million compared with $7.2 million for the fourth quarter of 2014. South Jersey Energy Services added Economic Earnings of $14.7 million in 2015 as compared to $24.6 million in 2014. For the fourth quarter South Jersey Energy Services contributed $9.3 million as compared with $3 million for the same period of 2014. Plus this area of the business houses our entire energy production portfolio, $17.4 million of one-time charges I noted in my opening comments flowed entirely through our Energy Services business, while the conversation concerning Revel is a familiar one, it is worth noting that we believe the settlement reached in December puts the negative impacts of that issue fully behind us. Further, we’re in discussions to recover the $4.6 million charge incurred in the fourth quarter. The remaining $1.7 million charge relates to December transaction whereby substantially all of the assets held in our joint venture Energenic LLC were distributed between SJI subsidiary, Marina Energy and its partnered DCO Energy. SJI retained all the assets associated with the provision of energy to the well-established Borgata hotel and casino property and two solar facilities. Other landfill and CHP assets were distributed to the partner firm. I’ll let Mike expand on the strategic rationale behind that transaction a little bit later. Turning to our individual project businesses, our Solar business contributed $33.9 million for the full year 2015 as compared with $25.5 million in 2014. For the fourth quarter, this business line contributed $17.3 million in 2015 as compared with $4.1 million for the same period in 2014. Investment tax credits throughout that performance contributing $38.3 million in 2015 as compared with $30.3 million in 2014. Operating performance continues to improve within our Solar fleet, and 2015 production generated approximately 136,000 Solar renewable energy credits as compared with 111,000 in 2014. As has been the case in prior quarters’ results, total production is not yet fully recognized in net income due to the three to six month lag in the certification of certain renewable energy certificates. Performance also reflects the fact that we have hedged a considerable amount of our SRECs when SREC prices were much lower than they are today. Looking ahead, we expect operating performance of our Solar business to continue improving as SREC prices have strengthened significantly during the last year. We’ll benefit from this as we hedge future production from our new and existing Solar facilities, at the much higher SREC prices available in the market today. Looking at CHP, for the full year our portfolio reflected a loss of $13.7 million as compared with Economic Earnings of $1.8 million in 2014. For the quarter, contributions from CHP reflected a loss of $5.1 million in 2015 as compared to a loss of $0.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. As I previously indicated, these results directly reflect the charge associated with our energy facility at the former Revel property. Excluding the charge, CHP was a positive contributor to Economic Earnings for the year. Our landfill projects produced a loss of $4.5 million in 2015 as compared with a loss of $3.3 million in 2014. For the quarter landfills posted a loss of $1.3 million versus a $700,000 loss in the fourth quarter of 2014, due in large part to the inability of the landfill operator at our largest facility to provide gas in November and December. Performance of the landfills has been an issue for a while and that was one of the drivers behind the restructuring of our Energy production business. As we move forward, SJI’s portfolio now includes just four active landfill projects, which all support a single power purchase agreement for renewable energy at the Borgata property. Within the Wholesale Commodity and Fuel Management segment of our business, 2015 was a very profitable year. South Jersey Energy Group contributed $16.8 million in 2015 compared with $13 million in the previous year, an increase of nearly 30%. For the quarter, South Jersey Energy Group added $10.7 million as compared with $4.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. I want to emphasize that this performance was particularly impressive because it was achieved without the benefit of the polar vortex that boosted 2014 results. Rather, these results were attributable to the contributions from our three active field management contracts and our ability to optimize storage and transportation assets within our portfolio. We see this performance as being repeatable in 2016. Finally, our year-end equity to cap ratio was 42% as compared to 43% in 2014. This ratio reflects the significant investments we made in our Utility and in our Solar Project Development business over the last year. To support our balance sheet, we’ve used our dividend reinvestment plan to issue equity totalling $63.2 million in 2015. Further, we currently maintain a cumulative deferred tax benefits totalling nearly $400 million related to bonus depreciation and investment tax credits that we expect to realize over the next 10 years, as we work towards strengthening our balance sheet. At this time, I’ll turn the call over to Mike. Mike Renna Thanks, Steve. Good morning, everyone. It goes without saying that 2015 was a particularly challenging one for SJI. But it is our performance in light of those challenges, strengthened by a new vision that has put us on a path for long-term sustainable growth. Repositioning executed in 2015, will serve as the bridge to our 2020 plan, defined by four clear and achievable goals. The first is to grow earnings to at least $150 million, it’s important to emphasize that 150 million represents earnings from our core operations. In other words, earnings without the benefit of investment tax credits. Effectively, we are doubling SJI’s earnings from operations in five years. Next, is to improve the quality of our earnings. As we move through the second half of the decade toward 2020, we expect nearly 80% of earnings to be coming from regulated businesses. The third tenant of our plan is to strengthen our balance sheet. As our investment profile changes and aligns with increased opportunity in our regulated businesses, we will realize a marked and considerable de-levering of our balance sheet. Finally, we will accomplish all of this with a continued focus on reducing risk across our portfolio to ensure that we provide not only high-quality, but also consistent and reliable earnings. As I mentioned earlier, the challenges face in 2015 were certainly difficult and unfortunate, provided a platform for change and growth. Specifically, the bondholders’ settlement and eventual write-off of our energy assets associated with the former Revel property allowed us to relief SJI of a significant and costly financial and resource drain. Last six months have brought forth a renewed organizational focus on those businesses that are the foundation of our plan. The Energenic transaction completed in December has real and tangible strategic benefits. Our assets are now concentrated on high-performing proven CHP assets and a smaller landfill fleet, a fleet, where the majority of the output is protected by a long-term power purchase agreement with Borgata. Over the long-term this transaction will afford a stronger and more stabled income stream and considerable cost savings. The impacts in our region from higher gas cost during extreme weather in 2014 and to a lesser extent 2015 have only deepened our commitment to critical pipeline projects like BL England and PennEast, both provide much needed gas and electric reliability and cost savings to constrained areas of New Jersey. 2015 bolstered my confidence in our ability to deliver at least 150 million in Economic Earnings by 2020. The foundation is there, customer growth combined with ongoing investment in our utility infrastructure, supported by strong performance from our Commodity Marketing and Fuel Management business lines will drive meaningful and near-term improvements in performance. While broader initiatives like an enhanced commitment to leadership and talent development and new midstream investments like PennEast will allow for exceptional long-term growth. Looking to 2016, due to the many advantages of natural gas, we expect significant customer growth to continue. Additionally, investments through programs like our AIRP and SHARP will provide benefits to both customers and shareholders alike. These impacts combined with investment in new projects like the BL England pipeline and our natural gas liquifier will position the utility to contribute more than 70% of earnings in 2016. On the non-utility side of the business, our retail and wholesale commodity lines at South Jersey Energy Group are solidly positioned for the future. On the retail side, a number of diverse multiyear customer contracts support growth from this business line year-over-year. In 2016, two additional fuel management contracts will begin contributing when the Panda Liberty and Panda Patriot facilities come online. With a total of eight contracts already executed, we remain well-positioned to serve at least 10 gas fired generators by 2020. These initiatives support our expectation that this business segment will contribute roughly 20% to 25% to earnings in 2016. Looking at South Jersey Energy Services, and in particular our Energy Production business, we expect to see Solar development continue to be a technology that demonstrates improved performance and remains highly valued within the market. With that said though, due in large part to the impact of bonus depreciation on the timing of when we can realize the cash benefit of renewable ITCs, we anticipate a sharp decline in Solar investment in 2016. As a result for this year and beyond, we expect services to contribute between 5% and 10% to Economic Earnings. As we look ahead, our future will benefit from the roll in 2015 played as a critical positioning year, because of the versatility and agility of our business, we’ve been able to overcome several short-term challenges without compromising our potential for significant long-term growth. This time, I’ll turn the call back over to the operator for the Q&A portion. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Chris Ellinghaus. Please proceed. Chris Ellinghaus I just want to ask you a couple of things. Can you give us any color, I gather from your comments on solar ITCs that despite the ITC extension, you are sort of sticking to your plan to wind down solar ITCs as an earnings driver. Can you give us any color over what ’16 looks like and how many years do you see that taking? Mike Renna Sure, I think again 2016 you’ll see a considerable reduction in the level of renewable investment, and then consequently with the ITC number would be significantly less than it is or it has been in recent years. I don’t want to pre-empt our guidance by giving you a finite number, but I think considerable and significant are the two words that come to mind. And I would expect that in 2017 and beyond, you’ll see very limited investment on our part in renewable projects. Look I think the project is still – they produced very attractive returns when you look at them on a discrete basis, but the issue becomes when you can recognize the cash benefits of them. So, when you cut the NPV of these projects in half and start to get the de minimis returns on investment because of the nature of when you can realize the cash flows, it becomes pretty difficult to support meaningful investment. Chris Ellinghaus Okay. Steve Clark At the same time Chris, we have a lot of investment coming in front of us in the regulated businesses, so I think our focus is to have that be the area that we look to deploy our capital. Chris Ellinghaus Right, I don’t disagree with the strategy. I’m just trying to figure out the timing. Bad debt expense in 2015, I get the polar vortex and how that would impact customers. How do you see that sort of going forward, do you see that as something that is going to decline with the more mild weather? What do you think is going to happen? Mike Renna I’ll let Jeff DuBois answer that question. Jeff DuBois Chris yes I mean we definitely see it stabilize, we saw a big uptick because of the polar vortex two winters ago and even last winter, but with the combination of commodity prices dropping so drastically, as well as the weather being down we see our receivables coming down. Chris Ellinghaus Also, Steve, can you give us any color on outside of the charges for 2015, any kind of indication of how much you spent in terms of legal, O&M costs for all of the commotion? Steve Clark No Chris I don’t have a good breakdown on that, I can provide that at another time, I think it’s relatively straight forward. The difference we were talking about there that was really designed to pick up kind of the variance between how it impacted us in ’14 and how it impacted us in ’15. There were obviously several million dollars there and the settlement done there was probably the biggest, so that was a pre-tax settlement of about $7.5 million, so getting that out of the way for us is a big deal. Probably more important than any of that Chris, is that it was the amount of management time and focus that was spent on it. Chris Ellinghaus Right. Steve Clark That will be kind of dedicated that to profitable portions of our business as opposed to dealing with an issue of settlement. Operator Your next question comes from the line of Dan Fidell. Please proceed. Dan Fidell I think that’s me, good morning guys it is Dan Fidell. Mike Renna We thought it was your brother Dan. Dan Fidell Yes my brother is Sam, right. So thanks for the call and just a couple of follow-up questions from me. First, can you just from a timing standpoint give us how you see the BL England process from here on playing out? Where do we stand in terms of the appeals process and maybe a little bit more specifically when do you think you might be able to start construction? Jeff DuBois Hi Dan this is Jeff. We’ve gotten all of the approvals that we need from both the Board of Public Utilities and the Pinelands Commission. There have been a couple of challenges by some environmental groups. We see those challenges probably taking anywhere as in the range of nine to 12 months in total. So we believe that there is still an opportunity to start construction this year at the very least we’ll probably start ordering supplies and equipment for that project hopefully by the fourth quarter. Dan Fidell Okay, great. Thank you, very helpful there in terms of the timing. I guess maybe just switching topics quickly to Energenic. Just kind of interested in sort of a two part question here in terms of how you guys kind of decided on the division of assets? And then I guess secondarily now that we are past kind of that restructuring process, what it means for your partnership in terms of future growth opportunities going forward? Mike Renna Sure, Dan. It is Mike. Dan Fidell Hi Mike. Mike Renna Let me — and I’ll start with this, this was a — we like to actually we kind of joke about it a little bit. This was a very amicable divorce if you will. The partnership was strong throughout. I think that we expected and hoped to be able to evaluate future development opportunities together with DCO. I think that right now, the market is pretty dry as it relates to opportunities for CHP which is where our interest would lie in terms of development opportunities. So, if things change, and the market picks back up and there are opportunities with credit worthy strong off takers and attractive returns on investment then we would certainly jump at the opportunity to do something with DCO again, so I think everything here is fine and solid. As far as the allocation of assets, it really came down to — for us to kind of as part of this repositioning was getting back to our core and our core are the CHP assets that serve Borgata. They are proven, profitable, they’re reliable and they’re complimentary. So when we acquired the cogeneration facility that serves Borgata, it was complimentary to that Marina thermal facility. The four landfills as well are all backed by PPA contract where their output is delivered to Borgata. So, we really focused on those assets that were related to our relationship with the Borgata. Dan Fidell Got it. That certainly makes sense there. I guess that kind of leads into my last question which is basically on the landfill side with kind of — it seems like the separation of a number of the landfill assets and you mentioned the four that you kept. Is it, I guess should we basically imply from this that the losses you have on the landfill side in the past that should narrow or get back to breakeven just on the landfill assets that you have retained? Mike Renna That is a core assumption that drove this decision for us and the selection of the assets that we were interested in acquiring, so, yes. Again, we are — I’m not going to certainly run from the fact that we’ve had some operational challenges whether it be gas availability or equipment issues at multiple landfill sites, but we believe these to be the four that offer the most potential going forward and again are also benefiting from the fact that there is a PPA above market actually that backs these contracts. Operator [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call back over to Mike Renna. Please proceed. Mike Renna Thanks. Before we wrap-up, as always, please feel free to contact Marissa Travaline, our Director of Investor Relations or Ann Anthony, our Treasurer if any follow-up questions arise. Marissa can be reached at 609-561-9000 extension 227 or by email at mtravaline@sjindustries.com. Ann can be reached at extension 4143 or by email at aanthony@sjindustries.com. Again, thank you for joining us today and for your continued interest and investment in SJI. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today’s conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect and have a great 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!

Who Wants To Be Short Volatility? I Don’t

Nearly 5 years ago, I noted how the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN (NYSEARCA: VXX ) was ” Designed To Fail. ” Since then, excluding some rather terrifying spikes, it has reliably melted away as I suspected that it would. If you put the position on back in 2010, you made something better than 98% on your money. If you re-weighted the position on spikes in volatility, you did a good deal better. Longer term, this publicly traded ETN is designed to continue melting away; however, in times of increased volatility this product can not only rally aggressively, but go into backwardation where the roll yield increases the value of the equity, rather than the negative roll yield that this trade is based off of. For instance, during much of 2008, volatility was in backwardation and being short volatility was a losing proposition unless you were aggressively trading it. I’m not trying to make a market call here, but as I survey the world, between the untried experiment with ZIRP, to the pending massive write-offs caused by shale oil , to the increasingly bellicose relations in the Middle East, to the continued economic collapse of Europe and possibly China, to the unorthodox US election, to the beginning of competitive currency devaluations, to a myriad of other issues, I have to wonder if I want to be short volatility under 20. The answer is-I don’t. For much of the past few months, the 1-2 month VIX has been in backwardation. I wouldn’t be surprised if this backwardation continues along with an overall increase in volatility. In that case, there will be another time to put this trade on. During a market crash, you want to have cash to buy bargains-not a headache caused by a short volatility position that is rapidly going against you. This has been a winner for a very long time and it’s now time to book VXX and wait for a better moment to short it again. I have had very few investment positions for a while now, but there’s a growing list of undervalued companies that I want to own after there has been a washout. For the first time in quite some time, I’m finding exciting things to invest in. Sitting in cash worried about the global economy, as I have been for the past few years, isn’t all that entertaining or lucrative. That’s how short vol feels when you’re on the wrong side…

Poor Future Returns Ahead According To Ten Years Of Highly Accurate Predictions

Can any one indicator predict, with a generally high degree of accuracy, whether stocks are going to do well or poorly over the next several years? Ditto for bonds? Most people would probably think not. Therefore, if you as an investor were to come across two such indicators, you would have to assess whether their successful results were indeed valid and likely to foretell future results, or on the other hand, perhaps be attributable merely to luck or chance, and essentially non-repeatable. Part of the obvious difficulty in finding such indicators is that both overall stock and bond prices cannot be attributable or influenced a single factor alone but a great number of factors. These factors interact, sometimes as might be expected, but at other times, differently, creating outcomes that few would have predicted. Some of these factors entail how certain aspects of the economy are functioning, but others would defy a straightforward relationship with the investing universe. Rather, the latter would likely require an estimate of hard to anticipate “psychological” factors that cause investors to either “love” or “hate” stocks and bonds, often over significant periods of time. At least, this is the conclusion I, and others, such as 2013 Economics Nobel Prize winner Robert Shiller have come to. In my case, this comes after approximately three decades of studying the movements of stock and bond prices and trying to understand what influences them. Given this, “single-dimensional” predictors of stock and bond prices are unlikely to be consistently successful, whether they be interest rates, gross domestic product, P/E ratios, consumer sentiment, or you name it. Instead, I’d rather study as many of the subfactors that potentially affect investment performance and come up with my own approximate assessment of potential future performance, even as highly subjective as that might appear. Narrowing this down further to a “composite” measure which might serve to help me predict future stock as well as bond performance might appear to be a nearly impossible task. But I will now present considerable evidence to the contrary. Specifically, the two measures I have come up with, one for stocks and one for bonds, have now been shown to have an impressive record going back to 2005. Note: Similar results were reported by me a little more than a year ago and even five years ago , and since then, new data continue to support the same findings. Of course, there can be no guarantees that these predictions will continue to prove accurate looking forward. Successful Stock and Bond Index Predictors Might Not Come From Where You Would Expect What I am referring to as “predictors” were not initially meant to be used to predict how the overall stock or bond markets would do. Rather, they were designed as recommendations, re-evaluated each calendar quarter, as to how much of a “moderate risk” investor’s portfolio should be allocated to stocks and how much to bonds in my Newsletter’s model portfolios. But, in a real sense, a relatively high allocation to stocks vs. bonds (or cash) should generally equate to an expectation that stocks will do relatively well, and the same for bonds. Likewise, relatively low allocations to either should generally suggest the opposite. Regarding a high or low allocation to stocks (or bonds), investors must ask what is the time frame involved. For example, in recommending a 100% allocation to stocks, does this mean one predicts stocks are going to be the best investment over the next few months, years, or over a lifetime? Each assumption has a totally different implication for judging the eventual success of the prediction. Again supposing an advisor recommends a 100% allocation to stocks. Question: Does this imply that he is quite bullish on the future prospects for stocks? Answer: Likely perhaps, but not necessarily. While this might be a logical conclusion, it only necessarily implies that he thinks stocks prospects are relatively better than the remaining alternatives, but not necessarily “high” in an absolute sense. For example: While stocks prospects might not be particularly bright, a 100% allocation would still make sense if one estimated that bond and/or cash returns were going to be even less. Thus, even expecting a 2% return in stocks should be preferable than, say, a negative return expected in bonds, or a near zero return in cash. If one had no expectation as to the future performance of either stocks or bonds, it would not appear to make any sense as a strategy to continually, or even on occasion, raise or lower one’s allocations. Rather, one would just select a single percent allocation that he was comfortable with given his risk tolerance, current financial position, age, years to retirement, etc. He would then only change that allocation when one or more of those variables changed, not because he thought it was a particularly appealing period ahead to hold more stocks, for example. Unlike aforementioned objective data such as current level of interest rates, etc., one’s percent allocations to stocks vs. bonds would seem to be totally subjective, and therefore, hardly useful as predictors. But in spite of the limitations, it does appear to make sense to consider strategic changes to allocations to either stocks or bonds as a type of numerically-based composite summary indicative of my level of confidence in upcoming future performance. I have chosen to define this measured future performance after three years for stocks and two years for bonds. How Do I Arrive at These Predictions? My recommended allocations (i.e. predictions) are based on almost all the information I can lay my hands on. This includes both economic data and, as noted above, whatever “psychological” inferences I can draw from observing how investors have behaved in the past, and therefore, are likely to behave like in the future. What are some examples of the latter? It has long been said that investors act in terms of greed and fear. This means that so long as the markets are going well, there is the tendency for investors to continue to invest accordingly, further pushing up prices. Obviously, the opposite is true as well: Fear, once aroused, can become the overriding emotion and keep on spreading to other investors. But “too much” of a good thing can lead investors to take profits. But “too much” of a reversal can bring out bargain hunters. And importantly, investors should be on the lookout for data that can cause what appears to be an ongoing trend to reverse. How These Past Predictions Have Fared Here are the data showing the effectiveness of using my overall allocation recommendations to stocks vs. bonds as predictors of subsequent stock and bond index performance. The data encompass all full three year periods for stocks and two year periods for bonds beginning back in Jan. 2005 and progressing to include the start of every subsequent calendar quarter. Using Stock Allocations The data is separated into two tables, making it easy to see two sets of outcomes depending upon high vs. low allocations. In Table 1 are shown all quarters in which, beginning the month shown, I recommended a relatively “high” allocation to stocks and the actual subsequent return on the S&P 500 index. A high allocation was defined as 55% or higher of an entire portfolio for moderate risk investors. Table 1: Annualized Returns for the S&P 500 Index 3 Yrs. After “High” Stock Allocation Recommendations Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return Jan ’13 67.5% 15.1% Oct ’10 62.5 16.3 Oct ’12 67.5 12.4 Jul ’10 60 18.5 Jul ’12 67.5 17.3 Apr ’10 60 12.7 Apr ’12 67.5 16.1 Jan ’10 57.5 10.9 Jan ’12 62.5 20.4 Oct ’07** 55 -7.2 Oct ’11 60 23.0 Jul ’07** 55 -9.8 Jul ’11 62.5 16.6 Apr ’05** 55 +5.8 Apr ’11 65 14.7 Jan ’05 55 8.6 Jan ’11 65 16.2 A relatively high allocation to stocks made at the beginning of each quarter was predictive of a corresponding relatively high return on stocks as measured three years later in the great majority of cases (that is, 14 out of 17). The average annual three year return for all these high allocation predictions was 12.2%. Quarters marked ** show those three where a high stock allocation did not produce a relatively high 3 year annualized return; these returns were each below 6%. In comparison, Table 2 shows all quarters during the same span in which, on the date shown, I recommended a relatively “low” allocation to stocks along with the actual subsequent return. A low allocation was defined as 52.5% or lower for moderate risk investors. Table 2: Annualized Returns for the S&P 500 Index 3 Yrs. After “Low” Stock Allocation Recommendations Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return Oct ’09** 50% 13.2% Apr ’07 52.5 -4.2 Jul ’09** 50 16.5 Jan ’07 52.5 -5.6 Apr ’09** 45 23.4 Oct ’06 52.5 -5.4 Jan ’09** 37.5 14.2 Jul ’06 50 -8.2 Oct ’08 42.5 1.2 Apr ’06 52.5 -13.0 Jul ’08 45 3.3 Jan ’06 52.5 -8.4 Apr ’08 47.5 2.4 Oct ’05 52.5 0.2 Jan ’08 52.5 -2.9 Jul ’05 52.5 4.4 A relatively low allocation to stocks was predictive of a corresponding relatively low return on stocks as three year subsequent stock index returns were noticeably lower than those shown in Table 1 in the great majority of cases (12 out of 16). The average annual three year return for the low allocation recommendations was a mere 1.9%. Notable exceptions are shown with ** for those four quarters where a low stock allocation did not produce a low three year annualized return, and in fact, where returns were quite positive. These exceptions, as well as those in Table 1, will be discussed in more detail shortly. Bottom line : The subsequent three year annualized returns in stocks originating from high allocation quarters were greater than 6 times more than those originating from low allocation quarters ( 12.2 vs. 1.9% ) in spite of the relatively small percentage of missed predictions. Using Bond Allocations Below are the data when the same type of analyses is applied to my bond allocations. For bonds, a “relatively” high allocation was defined as 35% or higher of an entire portfolio for moderate risk investors, while a “relatively” low allocation was defined as 32.5% or lower. If relatively high allocations to bonds were predictive of relatively high returns on bonds, one would expect to see that reflected in actual performance data shown in Table 3, likewise for relatively low allocations shown in Table 4 which should be associated with relatively low future returns. Bond returns were those reported for the standard bond benchmark, the Barclays Aggregate Bond index, by averaging the returns from year one and year two after the allocation recommendations. Table 3: Average Yearly Return for Bonds 2 Yrs. After “High” Bond Allocation Recommendations Quarter Beginning Allocation to Bonds Avr. Yearly Return Quarter Beginning Allocation to Bonds Avr. Yearly Return Oct ’10** 35% 5.3% Apr ’09 47.5 6.4 Jul ’10** 35 5.7 Jan ’09 50 6.2 Apr ’10 35 6.4 Oct ’08 40 9.4 Jan ’10 37.5 7.2 Jul ’08 35 7.8 Oct ’09 45 6.8 Apr ’08** 35 5.4 Jul ’09 45 6.7 The average yearly return for the high allocation recommendations in Table 3 was 6.7% . In 8 out of 11 cases, the return was at least 6%. Those 3 instances in which the return was less than 6% are marked with **. Table 4: Average Yearly Return for Bonds 2 Yrs. After “Low” Bond Allocation Recommendations Quarter Beginning Allocation to Bonds Avr. Yearly Return Quarter Beginning Allocation to Bonds Avr. Yearly Return Jan ’14 25% 3.3% Jan ’08 30 5.6 Oct ’13 25 3.5 Oct ’07** 30 7.2 Jul ’13 25 3.2 Jul ’07** 22.5 6.6 Apr ’13 27.5 2.8 Apr ’07 25 5.4 Jan ’13 27.5 2.0 Jan ’07** 27.5 6.1 Oct ’12 27.5 1.2 Oct ’06 27.5 4.4 Jul ’12 27.5 1.9 Jul ’06** 27.5 6.6 Apr ’12 25 1.9 Apr ’06** 27.5 7.2 Jan ’12 32.5 1.1 Jan ’06 30 5.7 Oct ’11 32.5 1.8 Oct ’05 27.5 4.4 Jul ’11 30 3.4 Jul ’05 30 2.7 Apr ’11 30 5.8 Apr ’05 25 4.5 Jan ’11** 30 6.0 Jan ’05 25 3.4 The average yearly return for these low allocation recommendations in Table 4 was 4.1% . In contrast to Table 3, in 20 out of 26 cases, the return was less than 6%. The exceptions are marked with **. Bottom line : Bond allocations formulated two years prior to actual bond market returns were available typically were able to predict how high or low bond market returns would be. In fact, high allocations were followed by bond market returns which were approximately 63% higher than when low allocations were recommended. Highly Accurate Predictions For both my stock and bond allocations going back to 2005, separating recommendations into those that were relatively high vs. low allocation would have been able to help investors capture high returns and avoid low ones. The results helped predict stock and bond market performance during both strong markets and weak ones over more than a 10 year period. These findings, along with those prior articles mentioned above, should be regarded as surprising, given what is regarded as the extreme difficulty of predicting stock and bond indexes using any number of other more objective measures. While the data show some exceptions to accurate prediction, even when including these exceptions, the average outperformance of the high vs. low allocations has been large enough to suggest that my allocations are, for the most part, anticipating correctly future strength and weakness within broad market indexes. Most and Least Successful Stock Predictions For stocks, the predictions for high returns were the most accurate from about 1 year after the beginning of the bull market which started in March 2009, a period encompassing 13 consecutive quarters. In the case of predicting low stock returns , they were most accurate for 8 consecutive quarters during the midst of the 2003-2007 bull market as they correctly anticipated that stock prices might begin to underperform for the next several years. They were also highly accurate in predicting low returns for 4 consecutive quarters after the 2007-2009 bear market had begun. The predictions for high stock returns were inaccurate only for a single quarter in the early part of 2005, and at the start of the two quarters preceding the start of the 2007-2009 bear market. The predictions for low stock returns were inaccurate only prior to the beginning of the 2009 bull market and for 3 subsequent quarters. Most and Least Successful Bond Predictions For bonds, the predictions for high returns were most accurate for the 8 consecutive quarters starting in the midst of the 2007-2009 recession and continuing for about a year beyond. They were most accurate in predicting low bond returns during the 12 consecutive quarters after the post 2007-2009 recession and economic expansion was well underway. They were similarly accurate during the ongoing economic expansion in 2005 for 5 consecutive quarters. Predictions of high bond returns were inaccurate during the 2 quarters US economy moved well past the 2007-2009 recession. There were several irregular periods of inaccuracy in predicting low bond returns during the 1 1/2 year period which preceded the 2007-2008 financial crisis. In summary, while my predictions were accurate the great majority of the time, they had the most trouble predicting subsequent returns when the economy “turned” in some significant way, such as when an ongoing bull trend turned to bear, or vice versa. But these inaccurate predictions were usually relatively brief as compared to the times when the predictions were accurate. What This Suggests for Future Stock and Bond Market Returns The above Tables do not show my most recent allocations to stocks and bonds. This is because not enough time has elapsed yet since Apr. 2013 for stocks and Apr. 2014 for bonds to see whether the longer term predictions will prove accurate. Table 5 shows these allocations; instead of showing three (stocks) and two year (bonds) returns, returns for just one year are shown. Table 5. Recent Quarterly Asset Allocations for Stocks and Bonds and Returns After One Year Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks S&P 500 Return 1 Yr. Later Quarter Beginning Allocation to Bonds Bond Index Return 1 Yr. Later Jan ’16 52.5% NA Jan ’16 35% NA Oct ’15 50 NA Oct ’15 35 NA Jul ’15 50 NA Jul ’15 25 NA Apr ’15 50 NA Apr ’15 25 NA Jan ’15 50 1.4 Jan ’15 25 0.5 Oct ’14 50 -0.6 Oct ’14 25 2.9 Jul ’14 50 7.4 Jul ’14 25 1.9 Apr ’14** 50 12.7 Apr ’14 27.5 5.7 Jan ’14** 52.5 13.7 Oct ’13 55 19.7 Jul ’13 65 24.6 Apr ’13 67.5 21.9 Note: NA signifies data not yet available. Although we cannot yet see if these predictions will be in line with the data in Tables 1 through 4, highly similar trends are already starting to emerge. For stocks, when allocations were high (55% and above), the average S&P 500 index return one year later was 22.1%; when allocations were low (52.5% and below), the average return one year later was 6.9%. The two instances out of 8 in which the predictions proved inaccurate are marked with **. For bonds, in the 4 instances where data currently exists, when allocations were low (32.5% and below), the average return for the Barclays Aggregate Bond index was 2.8%. Referring back to Table 4, you can see that bond returns have been consistently low for each quarterly two year period since April, 2011. Additionally, current three year returns Additionally, current three year returns on stocks still suggest that having a high allocation to stocks during the early months of 2013 would have been helpful to investors. However, since S&P 500 stocks have not shown any gains over the last a year and a half, it may be that 3 year gains will not be strong as we move forward. It appears that the trend for stocks indeed turned at that time and my allocations, as previously, had some difficulty at first in correctly predicting that turn. In Jan. 2014, my stock allocations dropped to 52.5% and have remained at that level or below ever since. Since stock returns, although initially good, have turned marginal since that date, it again appears that a relatively low allocation to stocks, although somewhat early, may turn out to have been a helpful move. Since Apr. 2014, my allocations to bonds have mostly been low. However, starting in Oct. 15, they turned high. As noted, over the entire period, bond returns have also been relatively low. But it should be pointed out that I raised my allocation to bonds not because I expected high returns on an absolute basis but only relative to cash. If the successful prediction demonstrated in Tables 1 through 4 shows these allocations are tapping into the potential performance of stocks and bonds, it would appear that we may be in for a continued period of low returns for both. Especially for investors in S&P 500 index funds, such as (MUTF: VFINX ) and (NYSEARCA: VOO ), the bond benchmark (NYSEARCA: AGG ), but also all other funds/ETFs that benchmark these two indexes, my findings may be of particular value. Disclosure: I am/we are long VFINX. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.