I haven't been following AGNC for a while and didn't realize they were selling over 15% below book, so there seems room to rally. But I don't see the dividend hike that you see. Looks like their core earnings are 0.45 per quarter, or 15 cents per month. Also, their spreads are around 2% if not below.
In the past, mREITs could run up to 125% of book, but I don't think that is going to happen any more. The spreads are just there unless they are in nonagencies or commercial and there you can't run 7-8 times leverage.
Griffin, thanks again for your work and commentary. While I get your point, its not when (and if) this bounces back to much higher prices (if it isn't taken out in a takeunder), you won't care that you paid $7.90 rather than $6.90. But during the time it goes down and stays down for some period and cuts the distribution again, that's when you will care. That's when you will say, I should have waited because there was no reason to be early because the stock lost more than the distribution paid (when it was paying).
This stock is oversold and the last time it was oversold, it bounced to the 50 dma and then plunged again. I expect that pattern to repeat several times.
The WSJ had a chart and headline on Japan. Did anyone realize that the Nikkei is at all time highs, having doubled from the 9000 level from 2013? I've added a Wisdom Tree Europe fund to my investments. With the US market at all-time highs and valuations, and the US dollar at highs which only hurts multinational earnings, I'm thinking the money is quietly moving to places with better valuations (as it always does).
I wanted to say that we have had a couple of good discussions about the future direction of interest rates and where the stock market may go, but yahee at two of my posts. One of Stagg's posts in which he talked about the losses that he avoided by selling some stocks, got me thinking that this market can't be that healthy if some stocks are experiencing the amount of declines that Stagg avoided. Granted they were mostly energy related stocks, but I think if you look back at the previous bull markets, the flip to a bear market started when some leading sector started to go in reverse. The bull of 93-2000 was led by the internet boom, but when those stocks collapsed, they took the whole market down with it. In the 2002-2009 bull market, commodity stocks and related industries like met coal and high yield shipping were some of the leaders, and they got crushed when the switch flipped. This is just making me wonder whether the collapse in oil stocks will be the cause that affects the rest of the market.
This got me thinking of looking at the charts from the past bull markets, the 1993-2000 bull and the 2002-2009 bull to see if there was some commonality in the charts that indicated when they switched from bull to bear. In the 93-00 bull, the S&P went from 450 to 1550, or 2.44 times the starting level. The 2002-2009 bull was not as large, going from 800 to 1550. If you take that 2.44 times metric and apply it to the start of this bull (at 666), you get to 2291. Maybe more important was the action during those advances. In the last bull, the market corrected 3 times in 2007 and held each time, but when it broke its 200 dma and then failed a retest of that level, the bull was broken. The end of the bull in 2002 was more of a rounding pattern, but you can still see where there was three corrections and on the third one, the bull died.
I note that the October selloff in 2013 was the first real break of the 200 dma. That leaves us 2 more to go.
Kee, I hope you sold ATLS too. I saw that ARP was going to have to cut their distribution and that that would hit ATLS.
In response to Stagg in another post, I mentioned that we all make mistakes of believing in some company's story, and my experience with ATLS and ARP was negative. I made money with their other company APL, and broke even with ATLS, but believing in their promises cost me some profits that i once had.
stagg, I find it ironic that you are making these points, yet in the past you have chosen to believe that SDRL was going to be ok because JF and the directors were buying shares and the board said they could pay the divy. Many people on the PSEC board complain about management and how they pay themselves a large management fee (while the stock goes down and the dividend is cut) yet you believe their "plan" for a spinoff is going to magically save that stock, just because other companies spinoffs have been successful.
You always think I am picking on you, but we all learn these lessons the hard way. There are many mistakes that investors can make just from not knowing the "inside game", like when stocks get overbought, or when spo's lead to big drops that can be buying opportunities, or believing that some company is going to pay a special dividend based on a misunderstanding of how that is determined, or buying a stock right before the ex-dividend date only to see the stock fall after. Investing is not Lake Wobogon where every stock is above average and every management is appropriately paid and every employee is fairly paid and treated and each company pays the "right" amount of taxes and employees the right number of employees in the US.
But to quote from the Godfather II, "this is the business that we chose to be in".
It was something they said in the conference call. I don't think they came right out and said we are going to miss, but they hinted at production issues. I think they had the same issues last year in Q1. Some were due to weather problems. The weather has been bad in many parts of the country, but I'm not sure it was bad in all the places they drill.
Mostly, it's my opinion about the way they operate, overpromising and underdelivering. They never mentioned any issues with their covenants and bamm, they are borrowing a second lien at L + 9. They never said anything about looking at the distribution and bamm, it's cut. They put out a registration statement for ATLS projecting a distribution of $2.20 and two weeks later, its 70 cents.
JK, the Fed meeting is next week and people may be positioning their portfolios ahead of an indication that they will try to raise the target Fed funds rate. Of course, if they don't say a rate rise is definite for June, the market may rally big. Even if they say they will raise rates in June, the market may still not trust that the Fed will do it then, especially because some economic stats are still weak. Basically there are reasons on both sides for either waiting or raising the target. I continue to believe that the actual rate at which Fed funds trades remains below their target, but most everyone is missing that point, which may become more important when the issue shifts to can the Fed raise the target an additional time after they get passed the first raise.
We saw some of this same market action when the Fed started discussing the taper. Some may say that the market brushed off early concerns of the taper, but while the major indices continued to rise, the taper certainly ended the advances of agency mREITS which have gone sideway.
Kee, first let's agree to drop the unemployment as a measure of the economy's strength. The participation rate is at all-time lows, and wage growth stinks. I can't speak for JK, but maybe he is alluding to the fact that the Fed punished savers, especially the elderly, to save the big banks. Granted the structural issues are not entirely the Fed's fault. Global economies and technological advancements create winners and losers. But the Fed pursued the wealth effect as a way to save the economy, and only those with financial assets benefited from their largesse.
Are we better off than we were 6 years ago? Why measure it at one snapshot in time? Doesn't the answer depend instead on where we are going?
helmet, you better watch it too, if you continue to espouse negative views on anything Sarge likes. Only sunny responses are permitted.
To be clear, I think that the actual Fed funds traded rate won't rise. The Fed may raise their target, but the actually traded rate will not go up (as is the case now). Some members of the Fed are anxious to return to a "normal" rate structure after 6 years of ZIRP, so the Fed may try to prove that it is still the boss and raise the target, and I do agree with Gambler that it is going to cause stocks and bonds to fall (who knows how much). Last October, when the market started to decline Bullard was out talking more QE, so all it would take is a 15% decline and everyone would be blaming the Fed for killing the stock market. Do people forget it was the stock market blowing up in '08 that ushered in the recession.
DH has me on ignore so he doesn't see my counterpoints to his views. I think he is dreaming if he thinks stocks don't get hit if bonds get hit. He is right though that a stock market correction should put the Fed on hold for further rate increases.
I bailed on some at $9.45 and had orders to sell the rest that didn't get filled. They are going to miss when they report Q1 and what few investors are left are going to lose the remaining confidence that they had.
Where's your source for production declines and down rigs in the UTICA? However, you are correct that the wild card is Walker and his thinking that everything is worth more than the market. I mentioned that Williams could be a buyer since they own 49%. Would there be some advantage to them of paying up so that they could have more depreciation than what they currently have by having a minority position?
Gambler, I just read an article today arguing that the Fed will raise the Fed funds target in June by 25 bps. The argument is largely based on the view that wage inflation is already here with evidence offered that Walmart voluntarily raised wages. The argument continues that once wage inflation starts at low end jobs, it moves up and becomes self-fulfilling for higher jobs Based on this view, the argument is that the Fed will try to get ahead of this upcoming inflation. The article stated that the market should hope for a 25 bps rise in June and another in Sept, instead of the alternative of a 50 point rise later which would be a real surprise to the market.
The wildcard in all of these arguments is that the Fed is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We simply don't know which economic statistics are going to be the ones that convince them to raise the target rate. If you remember, Bernanke originally said they would raise rates when the unemployment rate went below 6.5%, but then they changed that when further analysis of the unemployment rate showed the growth was due to low wage jobs. I don't know if I agree that wages are rising and that the inflation cat is out of the bag, but many have written that inflation is always due to monetary reasons and that history shows it can take a little bit of time, but that it always comes.
So while I still don't expect the Fed to raise the target rate, I do believe that eventually they will make a mistake. The mistake is of their own doing. If they never did QE4, banks excess reserves and the Fed's balance sheet would not be as high and they could raise the funds target and return rates to "normal" and rates would actually rise to meet the target. If they don't raise the target rate, the stock and bond market will go higher and that just increases the chances that they fall from their own heights, just like in 1987.
I frequently mention "technicals" in my posts, not because I am an expert, and not because I have a program that changes day-to-day, but rather because It is one of the mistakes that many investors make --- either buying a stock that everyone is talking about that is overbought or selling a stock that is oversold. Most of us on these boards are not day traders. But most of us are not buy and hold forever investors either. The main point is that just because a stock could be a good buy, like a TSM or Apple, that doesn't mean buy it right now when it is trading in overbought levels just because some poster on a message board keeps posting about it day after day after day. The other mistake investors can make is to hold a stock because they believe in some magical power that a company has, that they are unwilling to reconsider. Many times the technicals will indicate change before the fundamentals are reported by the company. These are the mistakes that I have made and I can see from the posts on these boards that I am not alone.
bob, the 10 yr is now 2.09% and maybe more importantly, it broke through the 10 day average and is sitting on the 20 dma. My guess is that rates may hang around this level until we get more economic news. But the unemployment report is one of the worst indicators of the economy. You would think that everyone knows its limitations, except for the robots reacting to headlines that "jobs are up."
Anyone tracking crack spreads for the refinery stocks? I read on the EIA site that the Gulf 3-2-1 spread was $17. Ed mentioned owning WNR a little while ago. If the crack spreads were that wide during this quarter, the refinery stocks should have good 1st quarters. Is it already priced into their stocks or do they have some gas left (pun intended)?
Keebon, what the Fed wants and what the market wants may be two different things. Fed funds trading at 0.12 when the target is 0.25 means that the Fed has no ammunition to push it up to their target. Raising the target higher doesn't mean that the market demand will follow, and the proof is where the market is trading now. The analogy is with lending. The Fed wanted the banks to lend out their excess reserves, but the banks didn't because they found it more profitable to own Treasuries (since the Fed was essentially letting them buy them on credit for 0%), and plus the Banks saw that there are fewer credit worthy borrowers that they would want to lend to. All of the lending now is in 2 categories: subprime auto loans and school loans At some point in the future, the banks may decide that they want to make loans and then those excess reserves will be lent out and demand will increase for Fed funds. Fed funds will then trade closer to the Fed's target. The banks lending more will increase inflation (eventually) and then the Fed will be able to raise the Fed funds rate, usually if history follows, after the inflation genie is out of the bottle and the Fed is behind the curve.
Again, for the Fed to make the rate rise to their higher target, they would have to direct the FOMC to sell bonds to reduce banks' excess reserves first. They have said that they aren't going to reduce their portfolio. In fact, they are reinvesting the coupons. QE has put them between a rock and a hard place -- they can't return to normal monetary policy tools (through management of the Fed funds rate) until they undo the extraordinary tool of QE.
When a sector becomes out of favor, usually all of the stocks decline, although at different rates. One problem with energy and MLPs is that there are so many funds and ETFs that played the runup in MLPs that they usually own the bigger cap well established companies like EPD, PAA, MMP (and probably KMI even though it isn't an mlp), so that when the whole sector comes under fire, all of the leverage in those funds leads to declines in the best companies too. The best ones will bounce back.
The utilities were way overbought, so their recent selloff wasn't precipitated by last week's job number and this phony talk about rates rising. Notice today that the 10 yr rate is down again to 2.09% as I write. In addition, the retail sales number came in negative (what happened to all those gas savings that people were supposed to spend?), the business inventory number is high, and Intel just slashed revenue guidance. So this talk of the economy improving which will enable a return to "normal" interest rates is just not going to happen.