MBIA Shareholders Laugh Efficient Markets Hypothesis All The Way To The Bank

As an active manager of debt and equity investment portfolios it will come as no shock that I do not believe in the efficient markets hypothesis (EMH).

From Investopedia.com:

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH), alternatively known as the efficient market theory, is a hypothesis that states that share prices reflect all available information and consistent alpha generation is impossible. According to the EMH, stocks always trade at their fair value on exchanges, making it impossible for investors to purchase undervalued stocks or sell stocks for inflated prices.

While there are numerous examples that clearly debunk EMH, periodically we stumble upon one so prodigious that it is worth sharing. This week that example is MBIA, an insurance comapny that is seeing its share price rise by a stunning 75% today alone:

What makes this stock, which closed yesterday at $7.38 worth nearly $13 today? A special dividend announcement from the company itself:

You read that correctly - an $8.00 per share dividend to be paid two weeks from now. You don’t see that kind of announcement every day for a $7+ stock.

Full Disclosure: No position in MBIA shares at the time of writing (unfortunately)

Is Total U.S. Credit Card Debt Really Over $1 Trillion and Should We Be Concerned?

Recession forecasters tend to jump on any financial datapoint they can find to justify their predictions of imminent financial doom and one of the those that bothers me the most is definitely our “record level of credit card debt.”

Here is a chart from a CNN article over the summer titled Americans’ credit card debt hits a record $1 trillion:

Before we get too concerned, consider the following:

1) Credit card “debt” is measured by simply combining all of the balances of every active card in the U.S. at any given time. So, if you use a credit card for everyday spending in order to get rewards and delay the cash outlay for the stuff you buy, that is considered “debt” even if you pay the balance in full every month and never owe a dime of interest. Considering how many people do this every month, and what percentage of overall credit card spend would come from such consumers, it is highly misleading to characterize every dollar of credit card balance each month as “debt.”

2) The financial media usually highlights the total amount of this so-called debt because it’s a big number. $1 trillion!!! Far more helpful would be per-capita data since the country’s population grows each year. If you don’t make that adjustment, most years will be a new record high.

3) As many financial professionals out there know, debt is one thing (sorry, for this one I am going to pretend the entire $1 trillion+ is debt) but what really tells the story of overall financial health is both assets and liabilities, income and expenses. Having debt is not a big deal (sometimes even quite beneficial) if your assets and income can easily support it.

With those ideas in mind, let me reframe the chart shown above to put credit card “debt” in better context:

a) Although total credit card balances have grown by 56% from 2013-2023, the U.S. population has grown by 24 million people during that time. Thus, on a per-capita basis, credit card balances average $3,029 per person in 2023, up only ~45% since 2013 ($2,089 per person).

b) As previously mentioned, the $3,029 figure does not represent true debt like a student loan or auto loan balance would. I don’t have data to indicate what fraction of card balances are carried over month-to-month, but it is safe to assume it is materially lower than $3,029.

c) How do we know if credit card spending has really been growing at problematic rates? Easy, let’s look at income data. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, median family income nationally has grown from $64,400 in 2013 to $96,200 in 2023 - an increase of 49%.

To summarize, $1 trillion in total U.S. credit card balances might appear to be concerning in the absence of any other information. If we adjust the data for population growth and compare it to income growth, we see that over the last decade incomes have risen 49% while credit card balances have risen 45%. Additionally, as credit card rewards programs have become more engaging over the last decade, it has become more common for consumers to use cards as a way to benefit financially by using them for most purchases and paying their balances off each month.

And so, there doesn’t appear to be a credit card debt problem at all.

That is not to say we will avoid a recession in 2024 (nobody knows that) - but rather simply that credit cards will not be a contributing factor if we don’t.

Big Tech Valuations Are Greatly Skewing the S&P 500's Overall Valuation

With the benchmark 10-year government bond rate now yielding around 5% it can be a bit disheartening for equity investors to see the S&P 500 fetching about 19 times earnings. At best, future upside in price is likely going to need to come from profit growth, not multiple expansion. And if a recession materializes in 2024, prompting a material decline in multiples, well, look out below.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that the big tech sector has grown to be such a large portion of the overall market that non-tech stocks actually aren’t richly priced at all, even in the current interest rate environment.

Consider the 7 largest tech stocks in the market - Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Nvidia, Tesla, and Meta Platforms. Together they comprise 28% of the market cap weighted S&P 500 and sport a blended P/E ratio of 37x. Some simple algebra tells us that the rest of the market (the remaining 72%) carries a blended P/E ratio of just 12x. That latter figure makes sense considering stocks generally are well off of their all-time highs and rate increases have clearly been a headwind over the last 24 months or so.

The analysis remains consistent if we expand the calculation to include more of the tech sector. Information technology alone (excluding communications services - which is a separate S&P sector designation) comprises about 27% of the cap-weighted S&P 500 and sports a 29x P/E ratio. Doing the same number crunching shows that the remaining 10 sectors of the index combined carry a P/E ratio of just 16x.

If we try to determine what “fair value” is for the U.S. equity market given the 5% 10-year bond rate, most market pundits would probably say somewhere in the “mid teens” (on a P/E basis) based on historical data. In that scenario, 19x for the entire S&P 500 seems high, until we consider that tech stocks account for the elevated level overall. Exclude tech and (depending on your preferred methodology) everything else trades for a low to mid double-digit earnings multiple - which certainly makes it easier to sleep at night. It also likely explains why there are no shortage of attractively priced stocks outside of the high flying tech names that most people focus on. That’s probably the best place to focus right now as a result.

Is Cava Group the Next Chipotle Mexican Grill?

Long-time reader Zach writes in asking if Mediterranean fast casual restaurant chain and recent IPO Cava Group (CAVA) “is the next Chipotle?”

I think there are two core questions here; 1) does Mediterranean cuisine have the same mass appeal and guest frequency potential as Chipotle, and 2) can management execute a rapid growth nationwide rollout without making major mistakes (the chain plans to grow from under 300 locations to 1,000 over the next ten years).

If I were contemplating investing in CAVA (I’m not currently) I would be more concerned with #1 above, even though both are core risks. Let’s see how the stock market currently values CAVA stock, to get an idea of whether the bar is set high for its future growth potential:

Much of Chipotle’s success has been due to extraordinarily low build out costs relative to the sales volumes and unit-level margins the locations deliver. I believe CMG has the highest four-wall profit margins of any publicly traded dining company. That said, CAVA’s 26% in Q2 of this year is pretty darn solid. I would be concerned about volatility on this metric though, as the company currently projects only 23% for the full year 2023 and last year was more like 20%. Chipotle has been much less varied.

I would point out two more things when it comes to the quantitative comparisons above. First, much of CMG’s outstanding stock market performance has come from multiple expansion (2x price to sales post-IPO to more than 5x price to sales today). Conversely, CAVA stock today already fetches more than 6x sales and has only traded publicly for 2 months. The potential for similar multiple expansion simply isn’t there - which means they will have to grow units quickly and maintain volumes and margins while doing so in order to impress investors.

Secondly, notice that the market is valuing each existing CAVA location more than each Chipotle unit, despite CMG outposts earning about 20% more in profit dollars. Has CAVA earned enough trust to warrant that relative valuation? As an investor, if I could only pick one would I want own a CMG for $15M or a CAVA for $16M? Easy answer for me, personally (the former).

Another interesting point to consider is that CMG is so big and profitable that it generates a ton of free cash flow (I estimate about $1.2 billion for 2023) for management to use for stock buybacks, whereas CAVA is still burning cash because they are choosing to open new locations faster than the existing ones book profits. So at least in the near term, CMG’s share count will likely fall, while CAVA’s will likely rise - impacting future stock performance.

To get excited about investing in CAVA today I think you need to be really bullish about the concept and its ability to be successful with hundreds, if not thousands, more units across the country. Additionally, you need to feel like you are getting a low enough price that the stock’s upside potential is worth the executional risk.

My personal view is that at current prices CMG could quite possibly outperform CAVA despite it already being more than 10x larger in terms of locations opened. But even if they merely track each other, or CMG trails a bit, given the higher risk profile of a chain with fewer than 300 locations (versus one with 3,000+), I believe a risk-reward assessment still favors Chipotle. Time will tell whether that view proves prescient.

Full Disclosure: No positions in the stocks mentioned at the time of writing, but that is subject to change at any time without further notice

As of the publication date, CAVA stock was quoted at $43 with CMG at $1,860

Data sources: CMG: Q2 2023 10-Q, 2022 10-K CAVA: Q2 2023 10-Q, 2023 IPO Prospectus

Amazon Showing Further Signs of Expense Controls

About four months ago I wrote about how Amazon (AMZN) was doing lip service about operating more efficiently coming out of a time of rapid expansion during the pandemic. I figured that the stock, trading at $102 at the time, would need to see words translated into actual financial results in order to sustain a big move higher. Well, here we sit with the shares up 40% to $142 each, aided by a blowout second quarter earnings report. The early signs are good, but it will take a string of quarters in a row to convince skeptics.

I say that because although Amazon’s operating margins are running at about 5% right now, that remains below the levels seen during the 2018-2020 period (5.2%-5.9%). To truly be convinced that Amazon has permanently moved into a higher margin business model, I think they need to reach record-high margins and prove they can keep them there (and hopefully grow over time).

There are signs anecdotally as well that the company is serious about running leaner. About two years ago the company launched “Amazon Day” delivery - a feature that allowed Prime members to combine multiple orders into a single delivery on a day of their choice each week. For shipments that didn’t require 1-2 day delivery, it gave the company more flexibility with delivery speed and cost, and helped customers manage their deliveries more easily (and maybe even reduce porch pirate activity on their property).

As a loyal Amazon customer and shareholder, I loved this idea - until I tried to use it. I would frequently place multiple orders in a given week and specifically ask them all to be delivered together the following Monday. They never did. Orders placed on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday would all arrive early and packaged in separate boxes. From a customer satisfaction perspective, at least get the single package part right. If you want to spend more for them to arrive earlier than expected, fine, at least non-shareholders would probably be impressed. I was so annoyed that they offered this service and then refused to honor it whenever I opted in.

But a strange thing happened yesterday. I received 5 Amazon orders - placed Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday of last week - in 1 box, on the day I requested. I have never been so happy to get an item 8 days after ordering it in my life. Coupled with the company’s second quarter earnings report, it sure seems like we can comfortably say something is going on here. Hopefully management keeps the focus on efficiency because for the stock to keep rising materially from here, I think we need to see even higher profit margins in the coming quarters (the holiday season will be very telling on that front since big volumes should make it easier to dramatically impact the bottom line). While I am cautiously optimistic on that front, paring back the stock’s weighting after a huge run makes sense too.

Full Disclosure: At the time of writing the author was long shares of AMZN (current price $142) both personally and on behalf of portfolio management clients, but positions may change at any time.

Managing Discretionary Spending When Partners Think Differently

An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal published yesterday asks “Your Credit Card Has A Spending Limit. Should Your Marriage? (paywall).” This is a fairly common question and one I have discussed numerous times with clients even though it fits more into personal finance generally than investing specifically. The author offers the suggestion that partners have an agreed upon spending limit under which any purchase need not be signed off on by the other person. For example, as long as you want to buy something for less than $500, just go ahead and both partners agree to never question it.

This solution seems like a simple way to avoid arguments about excessive spending by one particular partner in a relationship, but it has an obvious drawback that the article fails to mention; usually one partner engages in the bulk of the problematic (real or perceived) spending. A simple per-item spending cap would likely work well when both partners spend roughly equally on discretionary purchases, but the bulk of the arguments about money will occur when spending patterns diverge. If one of you buys 10 $500 items per year and the other only buys 2 such items, you might not actually avoid having an argument about excessive spending.

Is there a better solution? Every relationship is different, but I think there is a near-perfect alternative. What if each partner gets their own monthly stipend that they can spend however they want with no questions asked? As long as each person is given the same amount each month, and the total allowance fits within the family’s overall budget (and thus does not impact your long-term financial goals), this set-up can work extremely well.

My wife and I combine our finances, except for this key item. All of our income goes into a shared account but we also each have our own bank accounts that are solely funded equally by automatic monthly deposits from the shared account. No spending limits, no questions asked. And our differing spending patterns (I tend to buy fewer, more expensive items, whereas my wife is the opposite) never come into play because we are each treated equally in such an arrangement.

I call this a near-perfect solution when I recommend it to others because I can think of at least two possible criticisms. One, if each partner automatically gets their “allowance” sent over to their account each month, you can pretty much assume it will all be spent eventually, which means total spending over time might be higher than it otherwise would (this is the same argument for zero-based budgeting in the corporate world). While true, as long as the monthly amount fits nicely into your budget and doesn’t impact other goals, I think it’s okay to spend a reasonable amount on yourself.

The other potential issue comes into play if each of you has a personal credit card that is used for these purchases. In that case, one partner could actually spend more than their allowance by racking up a credit card balance and just make partial monthly payments from their own bank account. If this system is to work, you need to have enough discipline to not rack up debt individually. If both partners aren’t okay with that, then simply scrap the credit cards and rely on debit alone for personal spending.

All in all, I think this idea works great for most couples, especially when compared to alternatives such as the spending limit concept from the WSJ article, which seems to have a glaring flaw.

Will Amazon's Efficiency Push Finally Prove That E-Commerce Is A Good Business?

Last year, for the first time since I originally started to invest in Amazon (AMZN) stock back in 2014, my own sum-of-the-parts (SOTP) valuation exceeded the market price of the shares. If you are wondering why I owned it at any point when that was not the case, well, the company’s growth rate was high enough that I would not have expected it to trade below my SOTP figure - which is based solely on current financial results.

That discount got my attention, as Amazon took a drubbing in 2022 like most high-flying growth companies in the tech space coming off a wind-at-their-backs pandemic. What is most striking is just how much of Amazon’s value sits in its cloud-computing division, AWS. If one takes a moment to strip that out (everybody knows it’s insanely profitable and a complete spin-off in the future would be an enormously bullish catalyst for the stock) and focus on the e-commerce business by itself, the picture becomes a bit murky. More specifically, is that part a good business or not?

We have heard for many years - since the company’s IPO in fact - that management is focused on long-term free cash flow generation and thus does not shy away from reinvesting most/all of its profits in the near-term. But one has to wonder, at what point is “the long-term” finally upon us?

Amazon began breaking out AWS in its financial statements back in 2013, so we now have a full decade’s worth of data to judge how the e-commerce side is coming along. The verdict? Not great actually. Between 2013 and 2022, AMZN’s e-commerce operation had negative operating margins 30% of the time (2014, 2017, and 2022) and in the seven years it made money, those margins never reached 3% of sales. As you might have guessed, they peaked during 2020 at the height of the pandemic at 2.7%.

Now, do low operating margins automatically equate to a poor business? Probably not. Costco (COST), after all, has operating margins only a bit better. The difference is that Costco is a model of consistency and grows margins slowly over time, which indicates just how strong their leadership position is within retail.

For fiscal 2022, COST booked 3.4% margins, up from 2.8% in 2012. During that time they only dropped year-over year one time and even then it was only a 0.1% decline. Compare that with Amazon, which had margins of 0.1% in 2013, negative 2.4% in 2022, and year-over-year margin declines in five of the past ten years. Costco appears to be the better business.

Like many tech businesses that loaded up on employees and infrastructure during the pandemic, only to see demand wane and excess capacity sit idle, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy is focusing 2023 on operating efficiency. They are in the process of laying off extra workers and subleasing office and warehouse space they no longer need.

I think Amazon has a real opportunity to prove to investors that its e-commerce business actually is a good one that should be owned long-term in the public markets. If the company takes this efficiency push seriously, it could come out of the process with an operation that going forward is able to produce consistent profits and a growing margin profile over time with far less volatility than in the past. If that happens, I suspect the stock rallies nicely in the coming years.

If they don’t hit that level of clarity and predictability, but settle back into the old habit of ignoring near-term results and preaching the long-term narrative, I am not sure investors will have much patience. After all, Amazon has now been a public company for more than 25 years and the market wants to finally see the fruits of all that labor pay off on no uncertain terms for more than a few quarters at a time.

Full Disclosure: At the time of writing the author was long shares of AMZN (current price $102) and COST (current price $491) both personally and on behalf of portfolio management clients, but positions may change at any time.

Despite Run on SVB, Bank Deposits Appear Safer Than Long-Dated Treasuries

Given the dramatic events of the last week in regional bank land, I will share a few points that I think are interesting given where we stand right now.

1) The $250,000 insurance limit is a mirage

There is a lot of discussion about the FDIC insured deposit limit of $250,000 (whether it is high enough, should be raised, etc) but let’s be honest, the limit is meaningless. The U.S. government has repeatedly shown it is willing to take extraordinary steps to prevent cracks in the financial system from cascading into catastrophe. It only took a weekend for leadership to guarantee 100% of all deposits held with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Thus, in this political climate, there does not seem to be any reason to worry about which bank your personal cash is held with.

2) Government-backed bonds are generally safe, but still carry risk

Despite the fact that everybody in the industry knows that long-dated bonds carry plenty of interest rate risk if you are forced to sell them before the maturity date, problems still arose here. After the Great Recession of 2008-2009, banks were encouraged to park deposits in safe securities like treasury bonds and government-backed MBS - securities that were considered safe and got you high marks during stress tests. SVB seems to have taken that to heart, in the sense that they bought lower risk stuff, but they ignored the fact that their liabilities were mostly short-term in nature and thus could very well be in position to be forced to sell them early at a loss.

The problem here was simply mismanagement - or the lack of risk management. Matching short-term deposits (VC and tech companies need to rely on short-term cash reserves much more than larger, mature, profitable businesses) with 10, 20, or even 30 year debt makes absolutely no sense. The blow could have been muted had they hedged the interest rate risk (somehow they didn’t) - or rebalanced their bond portfolio after it was clear the Fed was not slowing down the rate hikes. The fact that the yield curve was inverted during most of this period is even more shocking - as it means they were getting paid less in return for holding the riskier, longer dated bonds.

3) Contrary to the political narrative, this is definitely a bank bailout

The government announcement over the weekend was quick to highlight that any losses incurred by backstopping 100% of bank deposits at the failed institutions will be covered by the insurance fund and not the taxpayer. While true, this ignores the other part of the rescue plan. For banks that remain operational, but hold underwater positions in the same types of long dated bonds that tripped up SVB, the Fed will lend against that collateral at 100 cents on the dollar. This will minimize future bank failures by letting banks realize full value for an investment that is currently marked well below par value. Of course, this is a bank bailout using taxpayer funds (via the Fed). It may very well make a profit for the government - a la TARP - assuming they charge interest on these collateralized loans, but make no mistake - this is not private capital creating a solution but rather than Fed using its power as lender of last resort.

Much like 15 years ago, when the Fed accepted bad assets as collateral when nobody else would, SVB and Signature were the first to fail (a la Lehman and Bear) and in response those who lasted longer will reap the benefits (the other regional banks today are like Goldman and Morgan back then). So yes, it’s accurate to say the management and shareholders of failures like SVB will not get a government bailout, but their competitors will by being allowed to access newly created government-backed financial resources to keep them afloat.

4) It is likely that the Fed’s rate hiking cycle has indeed “broken something” in the economy.

But it’s not what we might have thought (the job market or GDP growth) but rather the balance sheets of the banking sector. After having been told they should hold more “good assets” like treasuries, the banks now require financial support to prevent these very securities from rendering them insolvent - even if sound risk management would have prevented problems. If this means the Fed hiking cycle will quickly come to an end, we might avoid an even bigger economic shock down the road, which could be the preferred alternative. If they keep raising rates now that banks have enhanced financial backing, well, then we’ll need to watch out for what else they will break.

How Well Will Earnings Hold Up? Watch The Job Market...

With corporate profits set to fall for calendar year 2022 (final results won’t be known for weeks), the big question for equity investors is whether 2023 will bring stability on that front or not. Wall Street strategists largely expect another decline as economic headwinds accumulate, but the sell side is staying rosy (current consensus forecast is earnings growth of ~10%) and likely will continue that stance until companies explicitly give them 2023 guidance because they have very little reason to go out on a limb and make their own forecasts.

The economic and investment climate today reminds me a lot of 2015-2016. Back then earnings also showed a year-over-year decline (2015) during a time when overall economic indicators remained bright. The U.S. unemployment rate fell that year, and GDP growth actually accelerated. The biggest culprit for profits was energy prices, which fell dramatically and sparked a wave of financial distress for much of that sector and the lenders who funded their operations. Fortunately, the energy bear market eventually resolved itself through normal supply and demand rebalancing and overall U.S. corporate earnings rose in 2016 and set a new record in 2017. The result was only a single down year for the U.S. stock market.

From my vantage point, tech is the new energy in this comparison. The pandemic brought forward a ton of growth for digital businesses and now that pent-up demand is waning, growth has slowed materially (going negative for many companies) and layoffs are mounting. But as was the case back in 2015, the rest of the economy is pulling its weight just fine. There are labor shortages in many areas, which has resulted in the U.S. unemployment rate actually dropping over the last 12 months (4.0% to 3.4%) despite the Federal Reserve raising the Fed Funds interest rate by a stunning 450 basis points during that time.

You can tell the stock market isn’t really sure what to make of all this. After a sharp drop in 2022, this year has started with a bang as earnings are holding up so far and GDP growth remains in the black with more jobs created every month. The thesis that corporate profits fall in 2023 may still play out, but the timetable on which that becomes obvious keeps getting pushed out, which means stock prices can start to discount the possibility that such a scenario doesn’t materialize (what we are seeing this week).

I think watching the job market is the key. What if we can get through a full rate hiking cycle with the unemployment rate staying below, say, 5%, and most of the firings come from big tech companies? Could most of those workers find new jobs with “smaller and older” tech businesses who previously couldn’t compete with posh offers from the likes of Google and Facebook? If so, we might just see a soft landing after all. With the consumer always the main driver of the U.S. economy, they will tell the story this cycle as well. Without strong incomes, the negative impact on the bottom lines for lenders and sectors like hospitality, retail, and entertainment becomes a downhill wipeout.

Where do I think we wind up? Hard to say, but I definitely think the current 2023 earnings forecast of $223 (versus $200-$205 for 2022) is overly optimistic. If we can’t push much past $200 with the current backdrop today’s S&P 500 quote of 4,100+ appears quite rich with a 3.5% 10-year bond yield. For the bullish scenario to play out we would probably need to see growth in 2023 (say, $210+) with a clear path towards an acceleration in 2024 to $230+ (after all, 18 times $230 equates to 4,140 on the S&P 500). Buckle your seatbelts… if January was any indication the range of outcomes is quite wide.