by Scott Martindale
  President & CEO, Sabrient Systems LLC

July saw new highs for the broad market indexes followed by a big fall from grace among the Magnificent Seven (MAG-7) stocks. But it looked more like a healthy rotation than a flight to safety, with a broadening into neglected market segments, as inflation and unemployment metrics engendered optimism about a dovish policy pivot from the Federal Reserve. The rotation of capital within the stock market—as opposed to capital flight out of stocks—kept overall market volatility modest. But then along came the notorious month of August. Is this an ominous sign that the AI hype will come crashing down as the economy goes into a recession? Or is this simply a 2023 redux—another “summer sales event” on stock prices—with rate cuts, accelerating earnings, and new highs ahead? Let’s explore the volatility spike, the reset on valuations, inflation trends, Fed policy, and whether this is a buying opportunity.

Summary

Up until this month, a pleasant and complacent trading climate had been in place essentially since the Federal Reserve announced in Q4 2023 its intended policy pivot, with a forecast of at least three rate cuts. But August is notorious for its volatility, largely from instability on the trading floor due to Wall Street vacations and exacerbated by algorithmic (computer-based) trading systems. In my early-July post, I wrote that I expected perhaps a 10% correction this summer and added, “the technicals have become extremely overbought [with] a lot of potential downside if momentum gets a head of steam and the algo traders turn bearish.” In other words, the more extreme the divergence and euphoria, the harsher the correction.

Indeed, last Monday 8/5 saw the worst one-day selloff since the March 2020 pandemic lockdown. From its all-time high on 7/16 to the intraday low on Monday 8/5 the S&P 500 (SPY) fell -9.7%, and the Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK) was down as much as -20% from its 7/11 high. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) hit a colossal 67.73 at its intraday peak (although tradable VIX futures never came close to such extremes). It was officially the VIX’s third highest reading ever, after the financial crisis in 2008 and pandemic lockdown in 2020. But were the circumstances this time around truly as dire as those two previous instances? Regardless, it illustrates the inherent risk created by such narrow leadership, extreme industry divergences, and high leverage bred from persistent complacency (including leveraged short volatility and the new zero-day expiry options).

The selloff likely was ignited by the convergence of several issues, including weakening economic data and new fears of recession, a concern that the AI hype isn’t living up to its promise quite fast enough, and a cautious Fed that many now believe is “behind the curve” and making a policy mistake by not cutting rates. (Note: I have been sounding the alarm on this for months.) But it might have been Japan at the epicenter of this financial earthquake when the Bank of Japan (BoJ) suddenly hiked its key policy rate and sounded a hawkish tone, igniting a “reverse carry trade” and rapid deleveraging. I explain this further in today’s post.

Regardless, by week’s end, it looked like a non-event as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 clawed back all their losses from the Monday morning collapse. So, was that it for the summer correction? Are we all good now? I would say no. A lot of traders were burned, and it seems there is more work for bulls to do to prove a bottom was established. Although the extraordinary spike in fear and “blood in the streets” was fleeting, the quick bounce was not convincing, and the monthly charts look toppy—much like last summer. In fact, as I discuss in today’s post, the market looks a lot like last year, which suggests the weakness could potentially last into October. As DataTrek opined, “Investor confidence in the macro backdrop was way too high and it may take weeks to fully correct this imbalance.”

Stock prices are always forward-looking and speculative with respect to expectations of economic growth, corporate earnings, and interest rates. The FOMC held off on a rate cut at its July meeting even though inflation is receding and recessionary signals are growing, including weakening economic indicators (at home and abroad) and rising unemployment (now at 4.3%, after rising for the fourth straight month). Moreover, the Fed must consider the cost of surging debt and the impact of tight monetary policy and a strong dollar on our trading partners. On the bright side, the Fed no longer sees the labor market as a source of higher inflation. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell said, “The downside risks to the employment mandate are now real.” 

The real-time, blockchain-based Truflation metric (which historically presages CPI) keeps falling and recently hit yet another 52-week low at just 1.38%; Core PCE ex-shelter is already below 2.5%; and the Fed’s preferred Core PCE metric will likely show it is below 2.5% as well. So, with inflation less a worry than warranted and with corporate earnings at risk from the economic slowdown, the Fed now finds itself having to start an easing cycle with the urgency of staving off recession rather than a more comfortable “normalization” objective within a sound economy. As Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee said, “You only want to stay this restrictive for as long as you have to, and this doesn’t look like an overheating economy to me.”

The Fed will be the last major central bank in the West to launch an easing cycle. I have been on record for months that the Fed is behind the curve, as collapsing market yields have signaled (with the 10-year Treasury note yield falling over 80 bp from its 5/29 high before bouncing). It had all the justification it needed for a 25-bp rate cut at the July FOMC meeting, and I think passing on it was a missed opportunity to calm global markets, weaken the dollar, avert a global currency crisis, and relieve some of the burden on highly indebted federal government, consumers, businesses, and the global economy. Indeed, I believe Fed inaction forced the BoJ rate hike and the sudden surge in US recession fears, leading to last week’s extreme stock market weakness (and global contagion).

In my view, a terminal fed funds “neutral” rate of 3.0-3.5% (roughly 200 bps below the current “effective” rate of 5.33%) seems appropriate. Fortunately, today’s lofty rate means the Fed has plenty of potential rate cuts in its holster to support the economy while still remaining relatively restrictive in its inflation fight. And as long as the trend in global liquidity is upward, then the risk of a major market crash this year is low, in my view. Even though the Fed has kept rates “higher for longer” throughout this waiting game on inflation, it has also maintained liquidity in the financial system, which of course is the lifeblood of economic growth and risk assets. Witness that, although corporate credit spreads surged during the selloff and market turmoil (especially high yield spreads), they stayed well below historical levels and fell back quickly by the end of the week.

So, I believe this selloff, even if further downside is likely, should be considered a welcome buying opportunity for long-term investors, especially for those who thought they had missed the boat on stocks this year. This assumes that the proverbial “Fed Put” is indeed back in play, i.e., a willingness to intervene to support markets (like a protective put option) through asset purchases to reduce interest rates and inject liquidity (aka quantitative easing). The Fed Put also serves to reduce the term premium on bonds as investors are more willing to hold longer-duration securities.

Longer term, however, is a different story, as our massive federal debt and rampant deficit spending is not only unsustainable but potentially catastrophic for the global economy. The process of digging out of this enormous hole will require sustained, solid, organic economic growth (supported by lower tax rates), modest inflation (to devalue the debt without crippling consumers), and smaller government (restraint on government spending and “red tape”), in my view, as I discuss in today’s post.

In buying the dip, the popular Big Tech stocks got creamed. However, this served to bring down their valuations somewhat, their capital expenditures and earnings growth remains robust, and hedge funds are generally underweight Tech, so this “revaluation” could bode well for a broader group of Tech stocks for the balance of the year. Rather than rushing back into the MAG-7, I would suggest targeting high-quality, fundamentally strong stocks across all market caps that display consistent, reliable, and accelerating sales and earnings growth, positive revisions to Wall Street analysts’ consensus estimates, rising profit margins and free cash flow, solid earnings quality, and low debt burden. These are the factors Sabrient employs in selecting our growth-oriented Baker’s Dozen, value-oriented Forward Looking Value (which just launched on 7/31), growth & income-oriented Dividend portfolio, and the Small Cap Growth (an alpha-seeking alternative to a passive position in the Russell 2000).

We also use many of those factors in our SectorCast ETF ranking model. And notably, our Earnings Quality Rank (EQR) is a key factor in each of these models, and it is also licensed to the actively managed, absolute-return-oriented First Trust Long-Short ETF (FTLS) as an initial screen.

Each of our alpha factors and their usage within Sabrient’s Growth, Value, Dividend income, and Small Cap investing strategies is discussed in detail in Sabrient founder David Brown’s new book, How to Build High Performance Stock Portfolios, which will be published this month (I will send out a notification).

Click here to continue reading my full commentary, in which I go into greater detail on the economy, inflation, monetary policy, valuations, and Sabrient’s latest fundamental-based SectorCast quantitative rankings of the ten U.S. business sectors, current positioning of our sector rotation model, and several top-ranked ETF ideas. Also, here is a link to this post in printable PDF format. I invite you to share it as appropriate (to the extent compliance allows). You also can sign up for email delivery of this periodic newsletter at Sabrient.com.

By Brent Miller, CFA
President & Director of Research, Gradient Analytics (a Sabrient Systems company)

The value of quantitative, rules-based, process-driven equity models is clear. They can be tested based on various historical timeframes and market conditions, sectors, market caps, and regions, while removing emotion from investment decisions. And with the exception of brief market periods driven by speculative fervor, investors tend to favor high-quality companies with solid fundamentals.

Sabrient Systems specializes in building fundamentals-based equity models that seek to generate alpha versus a market benchmark, including alpha factors and strategic beta indexes. In 2011, Sabrient acquired Gradient Analytics, a fundamental equity research firm with a team of forensic accounting specialists who focus on assessing earnings quality and anomalous insider activity, in part to enhance Sabrient’s quantitative model-building capabilities. Together, we leverage a unique collaboration of engineers and forensic accountants and a scientific hypothesis-testing approach to create proprietary alpha factors, multifactor models, process-driven portfolio strategies, and rules-based indexes.

In 2013, the combined team created the original version of our Earnings Quality Rank (EQRv1), a pure accounting-based risk assessment factor based on the collective experience and expertise of Gradient’s analyst team in identifying company-level earnings quality issues, aggressive accounting tactics, and misleading “financial engineering.” More recently, we enhanced the model to create EQRv2.

Furthermore, the Sabrient/Gradient team has created a variety of other valuable alpha factors, including an enhanced version of Sabrient’s flagship Growth at a Reasonable Price (GARP) model and several other factors related to value, growth, quality, and momentum. All told, we now publish the following eight “Sabrient Scores”:

1. Growth at a Reasonable Price (GARPv2)
2. Earnings Quality Rank version 2.0 (EQRv2)
3. Growth Quality Rank (GQRv2)
4. Strategic Valuation Rank (SVR)
5. Strategic Growth Rank (SGR)
6. Aggregate Price Momentum Rank (AMR)
7. Bull Score (BULL)
8. Bear Score (BEAR)

For institutional quants and systematic traders, we offer five of these alpha factors (EQR, GQR, SVR, SGR, AMR) as a factor suite (“Equity Factor Rankings”) for licensing through Nasdaq Data Link. However, fundamental analysts, financial advisors, and individual investors also find them valuable for screening, idea generation, risk monitoring, and confirmation. On a temporary basis, you can access all 8 of these Sabrient Scores free of charge through our SmartSheets products (one that provides scores for over 4,200 stocks and one for over 1,200 equity ETFs). Ultimately, they will be behind a paywall as a companion product to our powerful and comprehensive SmartLights^TM web application.

In this article, I provide further details on the purpose and basis for our Earnings Quality Rank and other alpha factors, including a summary of back-tested performance.  Read on....

  by Ian Striplin
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

The very nature of borrowing shares, securities lending, and short selling is opaque. During recent equity events, existing reporting procedures exacerbated the misperception of short interest levels and influenced the intentional short squeeze mechanics. Without rehashing what has been discussed at length, written about, and even chronicled in film, the SEC has been put in a difficult – but not unmanageable – position to “do something” about nefarious practices among some powerful short sellers. As a result, the SEC is proposing Rule 10c-1 under the Exchange Act, which would require any person who loans a security on behalf of itself or another person (Lender) to provide the specified material terms of their securities lending transactions to a registered national securities association (RNSA).

While the proposal impacts many asset classes, the securities lending market is dominated by US equities, and we focus on those impacts here at Gradient Analytics. Our clients look to us for differentiated short ideas built on a foundation of earnings quality concerns. Along with other liquidity measures, Gradient has always been mindful of short interest, not only to avoid crowded short trades but also to provide fresh ideas to our institutional clientele. If anything, we believe our research will stand to benefit from increased transparency, which demands greater effort to find actionable short ideas.

There are many items on SEC chairman Gary Gensler's agenda, and this may simply be the “topic of the day.” Indeed, we believe the short-seller bogeyman fits well with other recent demands – including a congressional stock trading ban, forced ESG investment, and T+0 (i.e., same-day) settlement of security transactions. In the interim, we looked at the proposal and came away with several thoughts, many of which one also might find in the comment section of the SEC website.  Read on…

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

A common misconception is that accounting figures are always black and white, i.e., well known and precise. But in practice, there are many ways that the estimates and subjective judgement of management can color financial statements. Recent amendments to accounting standards address specific examples when companies have applied prior accounting guidelines differently from their peers. When this occurs, analysts are unable to compare accounting figures across companies without additional analysis. Further, differing accounting methodologies coupled with opaque disclosures may prevent analysts from ascertaining an accurate apples-to-apples comparison.

Here at Gradient Analytics, we specialize in forensic accounting research and consulting, and our analysts stay current on changes in the regulatory landscape, including crucial updates to disclosure requirements. Normally, we focus research on areas in which companies might be tempted 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.

In this article, I provide details on updates to four accounting standards – and how they may shape financial statements with the potential to mislead investors. First, several Interbank Offered Rates (IBORs) ceased to exist at the end of 2021, and countries are transitioning to alternative reference rates. Second, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) revised guidance such that companies no longer may deduct certain items from the cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE). Third, the IASB now requires that a proportion of production overhead must be included when reporting so-called “onerous contracts.” And fourth, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a proposal to eliminate accounting for loans in modification through troubled debt restructurings.  Read on....

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

 At Gradient Analytics, we spend a significant amount of our time analyzing financial statements and looking for accounting irregularities (or shenanigans) and signs of misleading “financial engineering.” When we find a firm employing aggressive accounting tactics, we often notice that they operate in industries that are undergoing significant change or are in secular decline. This makes sense, considering that companies in such industries tend to exhibit declining top- and bottom-line growth rates. By applying aggressive accounting assumptions, management can temporarily juice both sales and earnings growth.

However, just because a company operates within an industry in secular decline does not necessarily mean it will struggle to grow. The stronger players often can accumulate greater market share and prosper, while the weaker players lose market share and fade away.

In this article, I provide a cursory overview of ten industries that we believe are in secular decline and opine on some of their constituents – highlighting a few that we think may thrive and a few that we think will struggle.  Read on…

  by Ian Striplin
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) are publicly traded companies formed with the sole purpose of raising capital to acquire one or more unspecified businesses – which is why they are often called “blank-check” companies. They will often (but not always) have an espoused target market or desired exposure for which they are pursuing target companies, but little else in the way of visibility to indicate what an investor ultimately will own. The management team that forms the SPAC (the “sponsor”) funds the offering expenses in exchange for founders shares in the entity.

SPAC preference has been increasing in recent years as a way to get a private firm into public markets more expeditiously. We believe the change in preference likely tracks well to abundant liquidity, ultra-low interest rates, and lofty valuations in many equity markets. Therefore, we view the rash of SPAC deals announced this year as a cautionary signal that markets may have become overly speculative. The SPAC process can be instrumental in unlocking private “unicorn-style” valuations, and its rise in popularity is contemporaneous to growth in private equity demand. Furthermore, many of the headline-generating deals are principally based on a long growth runway into questionable TAM (total addressable market) estimations. However, the growing reliance on non-GAAP earnings and consistently unprofitable public companies illustrates that investors’ willingness to wait for a return appears greater than ever.

In this article, I highlight several considerations for evaluating SPAC investments both in the pre-target phase and following the release of audited financials. I discuss several recent adaptations of the SPAC model, branding and potential outcomes from the blank-check boom, and use South Mountain Merger Corp (SMMC) and its reverse merger with Billtrust as an example of how investors might recognize “creative accounting” tactics with limited financial disclosures. As Elon Musk recently tweeted, “Caution strongly advised with SPACs.”  Read on...

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

 “Only time can heal what reason cannot.” – Lucius Annaeus Seneca

In response to the pandemic-driven economic downturn, both Congress and the Federal Reserve have intervened with fiscal and monetary support in the form of direct subsidies, loans, bailouts, tax rebates, supplemental unemployment benefits, ultra-low interest rates, support of capital markets, reduced regulatory constraints, and quantitative easing (QE). The Fed expanded its purchase program beyond Treasury bonds to also include municipal bonds, corporate bonds of both investment and speculative grade, as well as ETFs for the first time. While these policies can raise aggregate demand, employment, and investment in the short run, excess liquidity also supports inefficient firms that otherwise might not survive. The increased prevalence of these firms, as well as the valuation metrics at which their stocks trade can muddy the waters for analysts and thus contribute to a misallocation of capital. These firms also weigh on productivity growth going forward.

Because the downturn was spurred by the pandemic rather than the typical overheated economy and inflation, it has yielded several surprises for investors. For instance, despite unemployment reaching record levels, consumers spent more than expected on home repairs and remodeling which boosted sales at stores like Home Depot (HD) and Lowe’s Companies (LOW). Likewise, residential home sales have surged despite escalating unemployment. An intuitive expectation of an inverse relationship between the two would be incorrect, at least thus far. Outperformance of online retailers, like Amazon.com (AMZN), over some traditional recessionary picks, like Procter & Gamble (PG), has also been unexpected. Moreover, this was the first recession that drove people to spend more time outdoors, giving a boost to firms like sports vehicle maker Polaris (PII). However, the question to ask is:  Is this burst of COVID-driven growth anomalous and short-lived, or is it sustainable?

Another aspect to highlight is the conjectural nature of forward estimates and current valuations. The wild swings in near-term consensus estimates between earnings cycles seem to be highly speculative and largely based on the latest news headlines rather than analysis of underlying firms’ fundamental metrics. Similarly, it appears that some previously struggling firms are getting an unsustainable boost by pivoting to create products that help customers deal with COVID-19 impacts. In this article, I explore examples of two firms for which analysts anticipate rising near-term growth rates specifically driven by COVID-19 related tailwinds that we do not believe are sustainable longer-term. Read on....

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

The software industry is rapidly adopting a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) subscription model, which tends to drive higher lifetime customer values, and lower volatility in revenue and earnings growth compared to the traditional software licensing model. SaaS companies, which provide their software on a subscription basis via the cloud, have grown at a rapid pace in recent years. Moreover, they are poised to continue their strong growth trajectory as more enterprises adopt cloud-based services. And yet according to Synergy Research Group, SaaS revenue accounted for only about 23% of the total software market in 2019 despite growing 39% YOY and eclipsing $100 billion in annual sales, as shown below in Chart 1.

Chart 1. Enterprise SaaS Market Growth

The relatively low penetration rate of SaaS models implies that there is plenty of runway left for increased adoption. Unfortunately, when companies migrate toward a subscription billing model, financial transparency diminishes as the financial statements are impacted by the change. For example, sales growth tends to decelerate and cashflows tend to decline. These trends can be misconstrued as a sign of a financial distress when instead the company is rapidly growing while transitioning its billing model. However, sometimes the distress is real.

Given the benefits and the relatively low penetration rate of SaaS models, we believe that software providers will increasingly migrate towards a subscription model going forward. Therefore, we likely will continue to observe software companies reporting decelerating growth and deteriorating cashflows during the migration. However, we also must be on the lookout for companies that are under fundamental pressure and are using the SaaS migration explanation to disguise growth and cashflow headwinds.

In this article, I attempt to discern between these two possibilities. First, I describe how transitioning from a licensing sales model to a subscription billing model can impact a software company’s financial statements. Then, I examine two different companies that have undergone a SaaS billing model transition – Adobe Inc. (ADBE) and MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR) – and point out key differences between them that can help investors differentiate between an apparent slowdown in sales caused by a successful SaaS transition and an actual slowdown caused by fundamental headwinds. In my view, ADBE is an example of a successful SaaS transition, while MSTR is an example of a company that was struggling to grow sales all along but temporarily disguised these issues as a “normal” transition. I conclude by applying the same analysis to Splunk (SPLK), which is in the midst of its own transition to a SaaS billing model.  Read on...

  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....