Political Calculations
Unexpectedly Intriguing!
November 20, 2017

It's Thanksgiving Week 2017, and here at Political Calculations, that means that we'll be devoting the whole week to exploring the centerpiece of this uniquely American holiday in keeping with our annual traditions.

But that doesn't mean that we won't be discussing things like the stock market either - we'll just be loading it up with a healthy serving of Thanksgiving turkey.

Let's get started by doing just that, where we'll update the chart showing our favorite spurious correlation of all time - the apparent relationship that exists between the average live weight of U.S. farm-raised turkeys and world stock prices. The following chart updates that relationship through this point of time in 2017!

Spurious Correlation: Average Live Weight of U.S. Farm-Raised Turkeys and Annual Average of MSCI World Stock Market Index, 1970 - 2017(YTD)

If you're the type of person who believes that they can divine the future from any synchronous patterns you identify on charts showing apparently strongly correlated data like this - and the correlation here is indeed strong with an R² of 0.9717 - you should be very worried about the potential for a stock market crash in the near term, seeing as the chart shows that every time that the MSCI world stock index has risen higher than the proportionately scaled average live weight of U.S. farm-raised turkeys, a major correction hasn't been far behind.

We'll also tell you that even after detrending the data to account for the rising linear trends for both data series, the correlation doesn't disappear as you might suspect would happen for a fully spurious correlation. Instead, the R² drops to 0.5315, which might be considered to be a moderately-strong correlation.

And yet, we're happy to confirm that the apparent correlation is genuinely spurious. It's total garbage - the growth of the average weight of turkeys raised on farms in the U.S. is not, in any way that we can identify, connected to the growth of global stock prices.

If you want proof of how worthless this apparent relationship is, just consider that we first featured the spurious correlation between the average live weight of U.S. farm-raised turkeys and global stock prices back in 2014 - and as yet, the major sustained correction in stock prices that would seem to be imminent from this apparent relationship has not occurred.

So when you see charts showing these kinds of seemingly-correlated relationships, take them with a strong grain of salt! You should, at the very least, be able to identify some connection that logically links the two data series being compared. Without such a connection, you're likely just looking at something that, while it might be fun to consider, probably doesn't have much bearing upon or connection to the real world.

Speaking of which, since we've opened the door, if you're reading this article on a site that republishes our RSS news feed that also allows comments, plese share your links to examples of fun-but-false correlations. At the very least, the exercise might help you avoid the social disaster minefield that you would find yourself in if you're foolish enough to start talking up politics at this year's Thanksgiving feast by arming you with better and more interesting discussion topics.

Update: If you like puzzles and would like to take on an extra challenge over the holiday, you might consider looking into our detrending observation, where the trends that need to be subtracted from both series to properly detrend them are perhaps not linear ones!

Labels: , ,

November 17, 2017

Back in June 2014, we were among the first to observe in near real time that China's economy had cooling to the point where it could be considered to be in recession, which we based on a unique combination of trade and environmental data. The recessionary conditions that we observed persisted from 2014 through mid-2016, when they finally began to reverse. We noted at the time that both trade data and the measurements of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere indicated that the Earth's economy was cooling during that period.

In January 2017, the outgoing Obama administration claimed that the global economy was growing while carbon emissions were flat, an apparent decoupling between the two that directly contradicted our observations.

On 13 November 2017, we got a stunning vindication of our observations from the Global Carbon Project, which released its latest updates and measurements for worldwide carbon emissions, via the Financial Times, which reported the following (emphasis ours):

Stronger Chinese economic growth will push global greenhouse gas emissions to a record high in 2017 after remaining flat for three years, dashing tentative hopes of a turning point in the world’s efforts to curb climate change.

A new report by the Global Carbon Project, an international research consortium, predicts that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry will rise 2 per cent this year. The report was released at the UN climate change meeting in Bonn on Monday....

This year’s rise is especially disappointing as it follows three years of almost no growth in emissions despite a world economy expanding at a steady clip. In 2016, emissions were flat even though the world economy grew 3.2 per cent. One explanation for the uptick is that China’s economic slowdown in the middle part of this decade was more pronounced than official figures suggested.

Earlier this year, the government of China's Liaoning province acknowledged that they had outright fabricated fiscal and economic growth data over a period of several years, coinciding with the tenure of the province's Communist party chief Wang Min, who ran Liaoning from 2009 to 2015. The FT speculates that Liaoning was far from the only province that engaged in that practice, where they identified four other provinces in northern and eastern China that also appear to have been reporting inflated economic figures.

Which brings us to a remarkable bit of evidence that we came across on NASA's Black Marble web site, which recently updated its nighttime map of Earth, providing us with the ability to compare images captured in 2016 with ones captured four years earlier in 2012. We've animated the nighttime map of Southeast Asia, which flips between 2012 and 2016 below.

Animation: NASA Black Marble - Southeast Asia, 2012 vs 2016

If you look closely at the map, you'll see the nighttime lights brighten in areas that experienced economic growth between 2012 and 2016, such as along the coast of Viet Nam, and dim in the areas that experienced recessionary conditions between those two years. Pay very close attention to what happened between 2012 and 2016 in northern and eastern China....

The correlation between Night Time Lights (NTL) and economic activity has been found to be a "good proxy" for assessing economic development, particularly in countries that lack high quality economic data reporting.

The evidence is accumulating that the period from 2014 through mid-2016 was not as good as China's official statistics have previously indicated. Given the importance and sheer size of China's economy, it's remarkable that its relative economic health can be both seen from space and measured in the Earth's atmosphere thousands of miles away from its territory.

Labels: , ,

November 16, 2017

Every three months, we take a snapshot of the expectations for future earnings in the S&P 500 at approximately the midpoint of the current quarter, shortly after most U.S. firms have announced their previous quarter's earnings. Today's snapshot of the trailing year earnings per share for the S&P 500 reveals that the stock market's earnings have continued rebounding off their 2016-Q3 bottom, where the S&P 500's earnings per share now exceed their previous 2014-Q3 peak. Even by the most conservative measure, the long earnings recession for U.S. firms is finally over!

Forecasts for S&P 500 Trailing Twelve Month Earnings per Share, 2014-2019, Snapshot on 8 November 2017

Looking into the future, the outlook for earnings per share in the near term has dipped slightly since August 2017, but has brightened in the more distant future of the second half of 2018.

Data Source

Silverblatt, Howard. Standard & Poor. S&P 500 Earnings and Estimates. [Excel Spreadsheet]. Updated: 8 November 2017. Accessed: 15 November 2017.

Labels: ,

November 15, 2017

On 20 December 2016, shares of General Electric (NYSE: GE) peaked at a closing value of $32.25 per share. Since then, through the close of trading on Tuesday, 14 November 2017, GE's share price has fallen by nearly 44% to $17.90 per share.

We think that GE's stock price has further to fall before it bottoms.

Here's why. Based on a simple relationship between the company's share price and its forward year dividends per share, we find that GE's share price is elevated above the level that investors have valued the company's shares for its given level of dividends payouts since 2009, when GE last announced a dividend cut.

GE Stock Price per Share vs Expected Forward Year Dividends per Share on Dividend Change Announcement Dates, 2009-2017

The relationship in the chart above was developed using the company's share price on the dates it announced changes in its dividend payouts to the public with and the company actually paid out in dividends during the following 12 month period. The exception is the announcement for 13 November 2017, where we've projected that the company will sustain its newly lowered dividend payment of $0.12 per share over the next year.

What we find is that the company's share price when it announced its latest dividend cut on 13 November 2017 was elevated well above the trend line established by the relationship between the company's share price and forward year dividends per share for all its previous dividend change announcements since February 2009.

What that result suggests is that the company's share price has further to fall. Based on this first cut analysis, we would anticipate GE's share price continuing to fall to the $14-$16 per share range in the near future.

To build the case that is likely to happen, what we really want is more data points. We'll revisit this analysis soon where we'll incorporate data from GE's dividend declaration dates to build up the sample for our simple linear regression analysis.

Update 19 November 2017: We've followed up to include stock price and forward year dividend data from GE's dividend declaration dates. The updated chart, in which we've also connected to dots to trace GE's stock price trajectory versus its expected future year dividends per share, doesn't change very much from what we found in our original, more limited, sampling.

GE Stock Price per Share vs Expected Forward Year Dividends per Share on Dividend Change Announcement Dates and Dividend Declaration Dates, 2009-2017

We do however observe an important shift in the relationship between GE's stock price and its future dividends per share during 2015. Here, on 10 April 2015, GE announced that it was selling off real estate and other assets associated with its GE Capital unit. In addition to clearing the path to where GE Capital would be taken off the U.S. government's "Too Big To Fail" list on 29 June 2015, freeing the company from additional regulatory costs and burdens that had been imposed upon it after the financial crisis of 2008. More importantly, the move also provided a lump sum of cash that GE's board of directors used to help fund a buyback of $50 billion worth its shares.

The reduction of regulatory costs and also its significant reduction in its number of outstanding shares helped boost the stock price with respect to its future year dividends per share - in effect, putting that relationship onto a parallel, elevated track, which is suggested in the chart above.

As for our outlook for GE's share price, we still believe that it still has further to fall, but not quite as far as our earlier analysis indicated, where we would now put the bottom into the $15-$17 range.

GE's Dividend Change Announcements from 2009 through 2017

Extracted from contemporary news sources. These announcements frequently preceded the company's official dividend declarations.

Data Sources

Dividend.com. General Electric. [Online Database]. Accessed 14 November 2017.

Previously on Political Calculations

We began developing this form of analysis earlier this year! Here are the previous posts in the series....

Labels: , ,

November 14, 2017

On Monday, 13 November 2017, before the opening bell, General Electric (NYSE: GE) finally faced up to the reality that it wasn't going to escape having to cut its dividend for the second time since the Great Depression. That made the company's stock price action for the day very different from what the company experienced just a few weeks ago, on Friday, 20 October 2017, when investors thought they were going to see a dividend cut, but were surprised when the company didn't follow through at that time.

Google Finance: GE Stock Price from 20 October 2017 through 13 November 2017

This is a cool chart because it reveals not just how investors reacted to the news of no dividend cut on 20 October 2017 and also to the news of GE's 50% dividend cut on 13 November 2017, but also how investors anticipated the move during the days in between, as GE's stock price declined by 12.17% before dropping by another 7.17% on the day of the dividend cut announcement. GE's stock price fell by 19.34% during just those 16 trading days.

That final decline came after a 25.11% decline in GE's stock price in the preceding 10 months since 23 December 2017. GE's total decline since that date now exceeds 40%, which puts the company's stock price decline on par with its just announced 50% dividend cut from $0.24 per share to $0.12 per share.

Meanwhile, all that occurred as the S&P 500 has risen by 14.33%.

For GE, the slashing of its dividend comes with the news that the company itself will become much smaller. And yet, analysts don't believe that the restructuring that GE's CEO John Flannery also announced on 13 November 2017 goes far enough.

GE kicked off the morning by announcing a 50 percent cut to its quarterly dividend, a major, if necessary, step for a company that prides itself on the payout and caters to a large number of individual investors. Looking at GE's projected 2018 numbers released just a few hours later, however, it's not clear the company cut deep enough.

The reduced dividend still costs about $4 billion annually. And while GE's targeting $6 billion to $7 billion in industrial free cash flow next year, that's based on a "cherry-picked definition", says Cowen & Co.'s Gautam Khanna. The real number appears to be close to zero if you account for pension and capital expenditures as other industrial companies would, he says.

To be able to sustain their dividend payments to their shareholders, companies need to have one of two things going for them: positive earnings (profits) that grow over time and/or sufficient cash flow. Without either, future dividend cuts become inevitable, where the expectation of those cuts will lead investors to pull down stock prices until they arrive or until the company's management can turn their earnings and cash flow situation around.

At this writing, it doesn't look like GE has quite found its bottom yet, which is why a good number of GE's more dividend-minded stock owners are selling their shares and are buying the stocks of other dividend-paying companies whose business outlooks are brighter.

“People who were in GE for their dividend may be looking for a better place to put their money,” said Kim Forrest, senior equity research analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group in Pittsburgh.

Utilities .SPLRCU and consumer staples .SPLRCS rank among the sectors with the highest dividend yield on the S&P 500. They were also the largest percentage winning sectors on Monday.

We call that the conveyance effect, which occurs when investors act to sell their shares of a particular stock that is a component of a market capitalization-weighted stock market index and use the proceeds to buy shares of other companies within the index, with the result that the value of the index itself rises.

It happens all the time with the continual changes in the market cap weightings of individual stocks within an index, but usually not quite so visibly, where we have to thank the reaction of investors to a significant market event involving one of the more heavily weighted stocks of an index like the S&P 500 for making it obvious enough to be captured in a regular financial news report.

Previously on Political Calculations

Labels: ,

About Political Calculations

Welcome to the blogosphere's toolchest! Here, unlike other blogs dedicated to analyzing current events, we create easy-to-use, simple tools to do the math related to them so you can get in on the action too! If you would like to learn more about these tools, or if you would like to contribute ideas to develop for this blog, please e-mail us at:

ironman at politicalcalculations.com

Thanks in advance!

Recent Posts

Applications

This year, we'll be experimenting with a number of apps to bring more of a current events focus to Political Calculations - we're test driving the app(s) below!

Most Popular Posts
Quick Index

Site Data

This site is primarily powered by:

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

CSS Validation

Valid CSS!

RSS Site Feed

AddThis Feed Button

JavaScript

The tools on this site are built using JavaScript. If you would like to learn more, one of the best free resources on the web is available at W3Schools.com.

Other Cool Resources

Blog Roll

Market Links
Charities We Support
Recommended Reading
Recommended Viewing
Recently Shopped

Seeking Alpha Certified

Archives
Legal Disclaimer

Materials on this website are published by Political Calculations to provide visitors with free information and insights regarding the incentives created by the laws and policies described. However, this website is not designed for the purpose of providing legal, medical or financial advice to individuals. Visitors should not rely upon information on this website as a substitute for personal legal, medical or financial advice. While we make every effort to provide accurate website information, laws can change and inaccuracies happen despite our best efforts. If you have an individual problem, you should seek advice from a licensed professional in your state, i.e., by a competent authority with specialized knowledge who can apply it to the particular circumstances of your case.