by Ryan DesJardin
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

Here at Gradient Analytics, our focus extends far beyond domestic equity research. We are known to cover an extensive group of publicly traded companies whose shares trade on a wide variety of stock exchanges around the globe. Our team of analysts must be vigilant in keeping up to date on new accounting standards issued by both the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). More importantly, our team must be able to understand and reconcile the key differences between United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) and International Financial Accounting Standards (IFRS) in order to accurately assess a firm's financial health.

The ability to distinguish between these accounting standards has become a crucial skill for investors as IFRS has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. Today, more than 140 countries worldwide (including the United States in some cases) either permit or require the use of IFRS for publicly listed companies. In fact, there are only three major capital markets that don't currently mandate the use of IFRS for publicly traded firms: Japan, China, and the United States. Since 2010, when Japan added IFRS to its list of approved standards for domestic issuers, more than a third of companies traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange have either adopted or instituted a plan to adopt IFRS in the near future. China continues to amend its accounting standards to broadly align with IFRS. Furthermore, domestic investors must also be mindful of the variations between accounting standards as the SEC allows foreign issuers to report under IFRS despite trading on US exchanges.

In 2002, the FASB and IASB entered into the "Norwalk Agreement," which aimed to eliminate the many variations between US GAAP and IFRS. Since then, the boards have worked together to issue several accounting standard updates in an attempt to enhance the consistency and comparability of global accounting standards. Despite these ongoing efforts, many key dissimilarities remain between the two standards that present a number of obstacles to investors. This article uses earnings quality and fundamental perspectives to discuss key challenges while providing tips on evaluating a firm’s true earnings power.  Read on....

  by Rachel Bradley
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

At times, there are conflicts of interest between a company’s management and its investors, specifically shareholders, which creates a structural agency problem. So, it is common for companies to try to align the monetary interests of management with shareholders by awarding a large part of executive compensation in equity. As a result, management performance metrics often create an incentive to present the current period financials in the best light possible, even if it is unsustainable in the longer-term. This dynamic creates opportunities for a forensic accounting firm like Gradient Analytics, which specializes in assessing the quality of reported earnings of publicly traded companies to both vet long candidates and to identify short candidates.

An astute investor might ask the perfectly reasonable question, “If publicly traded companies are regulated and audited, then aren’t all reported earnings of passable quality?” However, consider that it is possible for a company to engage in “earnings management” by publishing financial statements that may mislead investors as to the firm’s true financial health without violating accounting standards. Moreover, we would argue that even though two given companies both followed GAAP accounting standards and received clean opinions from their auditor, earnings growth at Company A may be dramatically more sustainable than at Company B. Of course, it can be quite valuable for an investor to know when a firm is showing signs of unsustainability in its reported earnings growth.

In this article, I use three real-life examples to provide a high-level overview of our analysis process, which includes assessing earnings quality, anomalous insider trading activity, audit control risk, and corporate governance. Although Gradient does not employ a team of investigative journalists to knock on doors, interview company employees, or rummage through the trash for evidence, our comprehensive analysis of the published financial statements (and, importantly, the footnotes) can help stack the odds a little bit more in investors’ favor.  Read on....

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

Stocks continued their bullish charge from the pandemic selloff low on 3/23/20 into early-June, finally stumbling over the past several days due to a combination of overbought technicals, a jump in COVID cases as the economy tries to reopen, and the Fed giving grim commentary on the pace of recovery. But then of course Fed chair Jerome Powell (aka Superman) swooped in this week to save the day, this time to shore up credit markets with additional liquidity by expanding bond purchases into individual corporate bonds rather than just through bond ETFs. But despite unprecedented monetary and fiscal policies, there are many prominent commentators who consider this record-setting recovery rally to be an unwarranted and unsustainable “blow-off top” to a liquidity-driven speculative bubble that is destined for another harsh selloff. They think stocks are pricing in a better economy in the near-term than we enjoyed before the pandemic hit, when instead normalization is likely years away.

Certainly, the daily news and current fundamentals suggest that investors should stay defensive. But stocks always price a future vision 6-12 months in advance, and investors are betting on better times ahead. Momentum, technicals, fear of missing out (FOMO), and timely actions from our Federal Reserve have engendered a broad-based bullish foundation to this market that appears much healthier than anything displayed over the past five years, which was marked by cautious sentiment due to populist upheaval, political polarization, Brexit, trade wars, an attempt to “normalize” interest rates following several years of zero interest-rate policy (ZIRP), and the narrow leadership of the five famed mega-cap “FAAAM” Tech stocks – namely Microsoft (MSFT), Apple (AAPL), Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOG), and Facebook (FB).

Equal-weight indexes solidly outperformed the cap-weighted versions during the recovery rally from the selloff low on 3/23/20 through the peak on 6/8/20. For example, while the S&P 500 cap-weighted index returned an impressive +45%, the equal weight version returned +58%. Likewise, expanded market breadth is good for Sabrient, as our Baker’s Dozen portfolios ranged from +62% to +83% (and an average of +74%) during that same timeframe, led by the neglected small-mid caps and cyclical sectors. Our Forward Looking Value, Small Cap Growth, and Dividend portfolios also substantially outperformed – and all of them employ versions of our growth at a reasonable price (GARP) selection approach.

Although the past week since 6/8/20 has seen a pullback and technical consolidation, there remains a strong bid under this market, which some attribute to a surge in speculative fervor among retail investors. There is also persistently elevated volatility, as the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) has remained solidly above the 20 fear threshold since 2/24/20, and in fact has spent most of its time in the 30s and 40s (or higher) even during the exuberant recovery rally. And until earnings normalize, the market is likely to remain both speculative and volatile.

Regardless, so long as there is strong market breadth and not sole dependence on the FAAAM stocks (as we witnessed for much of the past five years), the rally can continue. There are just too many forces supporting capital flow into equities for the bears to overcome. I have been predicting that the elevated forward P/E on the S&P 500 might be in store for further expansion (to perhaps 23-25x) before earnings begin to catch up, as investors position for a post-lockdown recovery. Indeed, the forward P/E hit 22.5x on 6/8/20. But I’d like to offer an addendum to this to say that the forward P/E may stay above 20x even when earnings normalize, so long as the economy stays in growth mode – as I expect it will for the next few years or longer as we embark upon a new post-recession expansionary phase. In fact, I believe that rising valuation multiples today, and the notion that the market actually has become undervalued, are a direct result of: 1) massive global liquidity, 2) ultra-low interest rates, and 3) the ever-growing dominance of secular-growth Technology on both our work processes and the broad-market indexes – all conspiring to create a TINA (“There is No Alternative”) climate for US equities.

In this periodic update, I provide a market commentary, offer my technical analysis of the S&P 500, and review Sabrient’s latest fundamentals-based SectorCast rankings of the ten US business sectors, and serve up some actionable ETF trading ideas. In summary, while our sector rankings look neutral (as you might expect given the poor visibility for earnings), the technical picture is bullish, and our sector rotation model moved to a bullish posture in late May.

As a reminder, Sabrient has enhanced its forward-looking and valuation-oriented stock selection strategy to improve all-weather performance and reduce relative volatility versus the benchmark S&P 500, as well as to put secular-growth companies (which often display higher valuations) on more equal footing with cyclical-growth firms (which tend to display lower valuations). You can find my latest Baker’s Dozen slide deck and commentary on terminating portfolios at http://bakersdozen.sabrient.com/bakers-dozen-marketing-materials.  Read on....

  by Bradley Cipriano, CPA
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

As interest rates remain at historic lows, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) have soared in recent years. With the rise in M&A activity comes a rise in accounting complexity, introducing a plethora of ways that management can cosmetically improve their as-presented results – and mislead investors. Gradient Analytics specializes in forensic accounting analysis that helps to uncover these types of financial shenanigans, including overstated assets and revenues, understated liabilities and expenses, and weakening earnings quality. This type of analysis is useful for both vetting long positions and generating short ideas.

In this article, I describe four acquisitions that we believe were used to obscure underlying financial weakness at the parent company by temporarily shoring up growth and earnings. Key takeaways are how management can utilize acquisitions, purchase price accounting, and non-GAAP adjustments to optically improve their as-presented results. In each case, the theme will remain consistent: the acquiring company was under fundamental business stress.

The subject transactions include:

• SodaStream (SODA) acquisition of its distributors in 2012 and 2013
• SNC-Lavalin (SNC) acquisition of WS Atkins in 2017
• Belden Inc. (BDC) acquisitions in 2017 and 2018
• The Walt Disney Corporation (DIS) acquisition of 21^st Century Fox in 2019

Read on....

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

Optimism reigns for the pandemic slowing and the economy reopening. And because stocks tend to be several months forward looking (and remarkably predictive, at that), April saw the best single-month performance for the S&P 500 in 33 years (+12.7%), while the Nasdaq saw its best month in 20 years (+15.4%). The S&P 500 Growth Index recorded its highest ever monthly return (+14.3%). In addition, gold and bitcoin have been rising as a hedge against all sorts of outcomes, including geopolitical instability, trade wars, de-globalization, unfettered monetary & fiscal liquidity (i.e., MMT), inflation, a weakening dollar, a “toppy” bond market, etc. (plus the periodic bitcoin “halving” event that occurs this week).

This impressive rally off the lows seems justified for several reasons:

1. the coronavirus, as bad as it is, falling well short of the dire lethality predictions of the early models and our ability to “flatten the curve”
2. massive monetary and fiscal policy support and the associated reduction in credit risk
3. low interest rates driving retirees and other income seekers into the higher yields and returns of stocks
4. household income holding up relatively well, as the main impact has been on lower wage workers who can’t work remotely (and government support should cover much of their losses)
5. escalation of tensions with China seems to be “all hat and no cattle” for now, with a focus on economic recovery
6. massive short covering and a bullish reversal among algorithmic traders
7. the growing dominance and consistent performance of the secular-growth Technology sector plus other “near-Tech” names (like Facebook and Amazon.com)
8. the steepening yield curve, as capital has gradually rotated out of the “bond bubble”

What the rally doesn’t have at the moment, however, is a strong near-term fundamental or valuation-based foundation. But although the current forward P/E of the S&P 500 of 20x might be overvalued based on historical valuations, I think in today’s unprecedented climate there actually is room for further multiple expansion before earnings begin to catch up, as investors position for a post-lockdown recovery.

In any case, it has been clear to us at Sabrient that the market has developed a “new normal,” which actually began in mid-2015 when the populist movement gained steam and the Fed announced a desire to begin tightening monetary policy. Investors suddenly become wary of traditional “risk-on” market segments like small-mid caps, value stocks, cyclical sectors, and emerging markets, even though the economic outlook was still strong, instead preferring to focus on mega-cap Technology, long-term secular growth industries, and “bond proxy” dividend-paying defensive sectors. And more recently, investor sentiment coming out of the COVID-19 selloff seems to be more about speculative optimism of a better future rather than near-term earnings reports and attractive valuation multiples.

In response, Sabrient has enhanced our forward-looking and valuation-oriented Baker’s Dozen strategy to improve all-weather performance and reduce relative volatility versus the benchmark S&P 500, as well as put secular-growth companies (which often display higher valuations) on more equal footing with cyclical-growth firms (which tend to display lower valuations). Those secular growth trends include 5G, Internet of Things (IoT), e-commerce, cloud computing, AI/ML, robotics, clean energy, blockchain, quantum computing, nanotechnology, genomics, and precision medicine. So, we felt it was necessary that our stock selection strategy give due consideration to players in these market segments, as well.

As a reminder, you can find my latest Baker’s Dozen slide deck and commentary on terminating portfolios at http://bakersdozen.sabrient.com/bakers-dozen-marketing-materials.

In this periodic update, I provide a market commentary, discuss Sabrient’s new process enhancements, offer my technical analysis of the S&P 500, and review Sabrient’s latest fundamentals-based SectorCast rankings of the ten US business sectors, and serve up some actionable ETF trading ideas. In summary, our sector rankings now look defensive, and our sector rotation model maintains a neutral posture as it climbs from the depths of the selloff. Meanwhile, the technical picture remains bullish as it continues to gather speculative conviction on a better future, although with elevated volatility amid progress/setbacks as the economy tries to gradually reopen in the face of an ongoing coronavirus threat.  Read on....

  by Byron Macleod
  Associate Director of Research, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

In any given quarter for almost every company, there is often a swirling vortex of different signals as to the long-term health and future opportunities for each particular firm. Within this conflux of signals, there are two that often cause investor stress and confusion when they contradict each other: the firm’s GAAP versus non-GAAP earnings.

The simple rubric that often comes to mind is that GAAP earnings are the more conservative figure for the firm [as these accounting standards are closely monitored and controlled by a governing board, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)], while its non-GAAP earnings are the more optimistic view (after being heavily tweaked and adjusted by management). However, this assumption does not always hold true. Often, a firm’s non-GAAP results will be the more accurate representation of its historical earnings power.

Although Gradient Analytics specializes in forensic accounting research and consulting to identify weak earnings quality for short idea generation, our expertise is also valuable for identifying solid earnings quality for the vetting of long candidates, as we discussed in a previous article. And with the impacts of the coronavirus still working their way through both the US and global economies, it is a certainty that the next twelve months of corporate financial reports will be littered with a variety of non-GAAP adjustments that will need to be deciphered.

With this flood of adjusted earnings about to hit the market, we felt it would be a good time for some examples to illustrate that not all non-GAAP adjustments are created equal, and although investors need to carefully consider when and how they use non-GAAP results, often they may be better served by focusing on non-GAAP earnings.  Read on....

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

As COVID-19 quickly moved from outbreak to epidemic to full-fledged pandemic in a matter of weeks, hospitalizations and deaths gained momentum, as did the panic selling of risk assets. It demonstrates how interconnected the world has become. The pandemic has become a generational crisis – and the very definition of the proverbial Black Swan event – bringing the global economy to its knees, at least temporarily. As a result, Q1 closed with a rare and dreaded trifecta of three down months, which historically does not lead to a quick recovery (albeit with a small sample size). It was the worst Q1 performance since 1987 and the fastest fall from record highs in history.

From its intraday all-time high on 2/19/20 to the intraday low on 3/23/20 (i.e., a little over one month), the S&P 500 fell an incredible -35.3%, wiping out the entire “Trump Bump” and about $10 trillion in US market cap in almost the blink of an eye. Moreover, asset classes were highly correlated in a mass liquidation, leaving no place to hide other than US Treasuries or cash (thus strengthening the US dollar). Even gold and cryptocurrencies largely failed to serve as the safe havens from financial distress they are intended to be, at least initially, as traders liquidated everything into cold hard cash. Indeed, money market funds surged above $4 trillion for the first time ever. Never truer was the old saying, “Stocks take the stairs up and the elevator down” – or perhaps more fittingly in this case, stocks had rock-climbed up the cliff and swan-dived back down.

But the news has gotten better, as social distancing seems to be doing its job to “flatten the curve” of new hospitalizations, while the Federal Reserve and Congress have flooded the economy with unprecedented levels of fiscal and monetary support, stimulus, and liquidity. As a result, the S&P 500 has retraced over half of the selloff, and just posted its best week in 46 years (+12.1% in a shortened holiday week, at that). Now, the big question on everyone’s mind is, “What’s next?” Some see this as the end to a very brief bear market and the start of a brand new bull market, while others see it as just a bear market bounce and an opportunity to sell into strength before the next downswing. Some prominent names even think we are the verge of the next Great Depression. But from my standpoint, as we enter Passover and Easter weekend, I am optimistic that mass liquidation of financial assets is likely behind us, the economy will reopen sooner than previously expected, and that we have seen the market lows (although there may be some backfilling of technical gaps and retesting of support levels).

Perhaps a resumption of last fall’s fledgling broad-based rally (8/27/19 – 12/20/19) will persist much longer this time and favor the cyclical market segments (as many prominent names on Wall Street expect) and valuation-oriented strategies like Sabrient’s Baker’s Dozen – particularly given our newly-enhanced approach designed to improve all-weather performance and reduce relative volatility versus the benchmark S&P 500 (which has been tough to beat over the past couple of years given the narrow leadership of secular-growth mega-cap Tech and persistently defensive investor sentiment).

In this periodic update, I provide a market commentary, discuss Sabrient’s new process enhancements, offer my technical analysis of the S&P 500, and review Sabrient’s latest fundamentals-based SectorCast rankings of the ten US business sectors, and serve up some actionable ETF trading ideas. Notably, Healthcare is suddenly the hero during this COVID-19 scare instead of the avoided sector from all the “Medicare for All” talk. (Perhaps that is behind us now that Bernie Sanders has suspended his presidential campaign.) In summary, our sector rankings remain neutral, and our sector rotation model moved to a defensive posture last month. The technical picture shows a market that has likely bottomed and begun to recover, although with elevated volatility likely to persist and strong directional signals that are suddenly invalidated and reversed by the latest news report on COVID-19 or government stimulus.

As a reminder, you can find my latest Baker’s Dozen slide deck and commentary on terminating portfolios at http://bakersdozen.sabrient.com/bakers-dozen-marketing-materials. Click to read on...

  by Rachel Bradley
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

“Every man hears only what he understands.” – Goethe

Often, details in the financial statements hold the key to understanding a company. Here at Gradient Analytics, we specialize in forensic accounting research and consulting, and our analysts stay up-to-date on changes in the regulatory landscape, including crucial updates to disclosure requirements. Normally, we focus research on areas that might tempt companies to “manage” or overstate earnings, either by pulling forward future revenues or pushing out current expenses. Layer on more complexity from changing reporting requirements and it becomes clearer how a vital piece to the puzzle might slip through the cracks.

Below, I cover three broad topics. First, effective January 1, 2020, the governing accounting boards updated the very definition of a business. This new definition has multiple implications for reporting, but my focus in this article is the impact on M&A transactions. Moreover, this year both the Financial Accounting Standards board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) changed required disclosures for U.S. and international companies. Among other things, there is a new method for determining appropriate loan loss reserves, and there will soon be a requirement for companies to stop using Inter-Bank Offered Rates (IBOR) as reference rates, instead switching to Alternative Reference Rates (ARR). I describe these updates with four real-life examples of how they shape financial statements, with the potential to mislead investors. Read on….

  by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

What a week. From its intraday all-time high on 2/19/20 to the intraday low on Friday 2/28/20, the S&P 500 fell -15.8%. It was a rare and proverbial “waterfall decline,” typically associated with a Black Swan event – this time apparently driven primarily by fears that the COVID-19 virus would bring the global economy to its knees. Once cases started popping up across the globe and businesses shuttered their doors, it was clear that no amount of central bank liquidity could help.

But in my view, it wasn’t just the scare of a deadly global pandemic that caused last week’s selloff. Also at play were the increasing dominance of algorithmic trading to exaggerate market moves, as well as the surprising surge in popularity of dustbin Bolshevik Bernie Sanders. I think both lent a hand in sending investors into a tizzy last week.

Even before fears of a pandemic began to proliferate, market internals were showing signs of worry. After a sustained and long-overdue risk-on rotation into the value factor, small-mid caps, and cyclical sectors starting on 8/27/19, which boosted the relative performance of Sabrient’s portfolios, investor sentiment again turned cautious in the New Year, even as the market continued to hit new highs before last week’s historic selloff. It was much the same as the defensive sentiment that dominated for most of the March 2018 — August 2019 timeframe, driven mostly by the escalating China trade war. (It seems like all market swoons these days are related to China!)

Alas, I think we may have seen on Friday a selling climax (or “capitulation”) that should now allow the market to recover going forward. In fact, the market gained back a good chunk of ground in the last 15 minutes of trading on Friday – plus a lot more in the afterhours session – as the extremely oversold technical conditions from panic selling triggered a major reversal, led by institutional and algorithmic traders. That doesn’t mean there won’t be more volatility before prices move higher, but I think we have seen the lows for this episode.

The selloff wasn’t pretty, to be sure, but for those who were too timid to buy back in October, you have been given a second chance at those similar prices, as the forward P/E on the S&P 500 fell from nearly 19.0x to 16.3x in just 7 trading days. Perhaps this time the broad-based rally will persist much longer and favor the risk-on market segments and valuation-oriented strategies like Sabrient’s Baker’s Dozen – particularly given our newly-enhanced approach designed to improve all-weather performance and reduce relative volatility versus the benchmark S&P 500.

In this periodic update, I provide a detailed market commentary (including other factors at play in the market selloff), discuss Sabrient’s new process enhancements, offer my technical analysis of the S&P 500, and review Sabrient’s latest fundamentals-based SectorCast rankings of the ten US business sectors, and serve up some actionable ETF trading ideas. In summary, our sector rankings look neutral, and our sector rotation model moved to a defensive posture when the S&P 500 lost support from its 200-day moving average. The technical picture has moved dramatically from grossly overbought to grossly oversold in a matter of a few days, such that the S&P 500 has developed an extreme gap below its 20-day moving average and the VIX is at an extreme high. Thus, I believe a significant bounce is likely.

As a reminder, you can find my latest Baker’s Dozen presentation slide deck and commentary at http://bakersdozen.sabrient.com/bakers-dozen-marketing-materials. Click to Read on....