顯示具有 Everything 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Everything 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2012年5月31日 星期四

Kvetch in May: Why Market Timing Isn't Everything

All hail Memorial Day weekend. In the tradition of my Miami childhood, ‘tis the season to don Crockett & Tubbs white pants and flaunt the right to bare arms. Hedgies and traders clad in Sperry Docksiders bolt Gotham for the leafy, saltwater-sprayed indolence of the Hamptons. The market’s volume dips to a trickle.

And so “Sell in May and Go Away” becomes the mantra of choice. Indeed, this strategy has been especially useful over the past two years, with markets rallying to start the year and plunging between the onset of summer and autumn. One minute, the world’s not so bad, come to think of it, and stocks are hitting new highs. Then, with complacency all the rage, another PIIGS-led panic ripples across the pond. Maybe Europe’s denial about the urgency of its financial crisis is directly proportional to the temperature outside. Plus every man, woman, and baguette on the continent gets 30 weeks a year of paid vacation, I’m told, complete with a government-issued spa stay. But I digress.

Point is: Can you time the market?

The folks at Leuthold Group did a surprising analysis of the merits of going defensive in May—a strategy they call “Sell in May … without actually selling.” (After all, portfolio managers cannot just liquidate their portfolios and sit on cash for several months.) But they could sell volatility to go long the fuddy-duddy.

Leuthold calculated that if you had owned cyclical sectors (say tech and financials) from November through April and then switched into defensive sectors (utilities and health care, for example) from May through October, you’d have posted an annual return of 15.5 percent since 1989, compared with the S&P 500’s 8.6 percent annual gain. While 23 years of data does not prove an immutable market fact, this is a huge differential, making an original $10,000 investment compound into $275,000, vs. $67,000.

But anyone who’s taken college-level finance is supposed to know that timing the market is a fool’s game. “A look at the actual data shows that the intense focus on this seasonal trend might be yet another case of investors placing too much weight on the most recent events,” writes Daniel Putnam of InvestorPlace, who analyzed the past 40 years of performance for the S&P 500 Index during the May 1-Sept. 30 interval. He found that stocks are as likely to rise through most or all of the period as they are to fall. True, the S&P 500 hit its high in May on nine occasions. But  it peaked in September on 13 occasions, in June three times, July eight times, and seven times in August.

“The lesson,” Putnam writes, “is that more often than not, an investor who took the saying literally and sold on May 1 almost invariably gave up some upside.”

So why the endurance of the “Sell in May” meme? Maybe it’s summer’s recent knack for hosting market disasters, from 2001 and 2002?s tech wrecks to 2008?s mortgage meltdown and last year’s renewed kvetching over Europe and the U.S. credit rating. The mid-section of 1974, a brutish time for the American psyche, saw a 30 percent plunge. But back out these calamitous episodes and the S&P 500?s average May-September price return has been 3.55 percent over the past four decades. Putnam says investors should resist the urge to indulge their recency bias.

For my part, I have no recency bias. So if you’ll excuse me, there’s this party out in the burbs that I must get to.


View the original article here

2011年5月21日 星期六

TMX Group Says Price Isn’t Everything in Rejecting Maple Offer

May 21, 2011, 12:57 AM EDT By Doug Alexander and Matt Walcoff

May 21 (Bloomberg) -- TMX Group Inc. said just because a group of Canadian banks and pension funds is offering more to acquire it than London Stock Exchange Group Plc, it doesn’t make their proposal superior.

The Toronto Stock Exchange owner rejected an unsolicited bid from Maple Group Acquisition Corp. yesterday, affirming its friendly agreement with the LSE parent.

Maple’s plan “is a different proposal in that it does require a change of control as opposed to our current merger agreement with LSE Group, which is a combination of the holding company whereby our shareholders continue to share in the growth of the company,” Thomas Kloet said yesterday in a telephone interview.

The C$3.6 billion ($3.7 billion) proposal from Maple, a group of four Canadian banks and five pension funds, would also result in too much debt, TMX said in a statement. The company estimated an acquisition would boost its debt to 2.9 times 12- month earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, from 1.1 now.

The leverage “generates much, if not all, of the earnings accretion referenced in the Maple proposal and could constrain TMX Group’s ability to execute and implement strategic opportunities,” TMX said in the statement.

Luc Bertrand, vice chairman of National Bank of Canada and a spokesman for Maple Group, said, “we are disappointed the TMX board has decided not to engage in discussions with respect to our clearly superior proposal.”

The group will “determine” its next steps, according to a statement yesterday.

Exchange Acquisitions

LSE’s bid for TMX was part of about $30 billion in takeover offers for exchanges globally in less than six months, as bourses try to cut costs and generate more revenue from trading in stocks, options and futures. Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. dropped an unsolicited attempt to buy NYSE Euronext, owner of the New York Stock Exchange, on May 16 after battling with Frankfurt-based Deutsche Boerse AG.

Maple offered on May 13 to buy TMX for cash and stock valued at about C$48 a share. LSE’s Feb. 9 agreement would give TMX shareholders 2.9963 LSE shares for each TMX share. LSE investors would own 55 percent of the company, while TMX shareholders would hold the rest.

In comparison, under the Maple plan, TMX shareholders would get C$33.52 in cash plus 0.3016 of a Maple share for each TMX share. The group, which was created for this bid, would pay as much as C$2.5 billion in cash under the proposal, which is priced about 15 percent higher than the LSE offer.

Alpha Group

Maple also said it aims to acquire Alpha Group, a bank- owned operator of an alternative trading system that competes with TMX, and Canadian securities clearing house CDS Inc. after completing a takeover of the Toronto Stock Exchange owner.

LSE needs approval from Canada’s federal government as well as provincial securities regulators and two-thirds of shareholders. LSE and TMX submitted their application to Canada’s federal government on April 29. The country’s industry minister has 45 days, with a potential 30-day extension, to review the application to determine whether the transaction is a “net benefit” to the country.

The Maple bid wouldn’t require Industry Canada approval because it’s not a foreign transaction, though it would face reviews by regulators and Canada’s competition bureau, the group said in a May 16 presentation.

TMX also said today that Maple has provided “inadequate information” about its plans for TMX and that it carries the risk that regulators will reject integrating Alpha Group, a bank-owned trading system that competes with TMX, and CDS Inc., Canada’s clearinghouse for equities, into TMX.

--Editors: Chris Nagi, Steven Frank.

TO contact the reporters on this story: Doug Alexander in Toronto at dalexander3@bloomberg.net; Matt Walcoff in Toronto at mwalcoff1@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: David Scanlan at dscanlan@bloomberg.net; Nick Baker at nbaker7@bloomberg.net.


View the original article here