A bruising year for Snap Inc.’s shares worsened Thursday, as the stock plummeted more than 20% in after-hours trading as executives launched the company’s first major share-repurchase program amid revenue issues in a poor environment for online advertising.
Snap SNAP, -0.64%
executives revealed that revenue increased less than 6% year-over-year in the quarter — its slowest quarterly grow ever recorded — and said that the holiday season is shaping up similarly, with sales increasing 9% so far in the quarter. The social-media company, which laid off roughly 20% of its staff this summer in response to the issues, also declined to provide a full forecast for the important fourth quarter.
“Our revenue growth continued to decelerate in Q3 and continues to be impacted by a number of factors we have noted throughout the past year, including platform policy changes, macroeconomic headwinds, and increased competition,” executives said in a letter to shareholders, outlining the results. “We are finding that our advertising partners across many industries are decreasing their marketing budgets, especially in the face of operating environment headwinds, inflation-driven cost pressures, and rising costs of capital.”
“Forward-looking revenue visibility remains incredibly challenging, and this is compounded by the fact that revenue in Q4 is typically disproportionately generated in the back half of the quarter, which further reduces our visibility,” executives explained about the lack of guidance in a letter to investors.
The board did approve a $500 million share repurchase, a first for the young company. In a news release, executives said that the move was meant “to opportunistically offset a portion of the dilution related to the issuance of restricted stock units to employees as part of the overall compensation program designed to foster an ownership culture.”
Snap’s results —the first among the major tech companies who rely heavily on digital advertising — likely portend even more turbulent times ahead for Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL, +0.34%
GOOG, +0.24%
Google, Facebook parent company Meta Platforms Inc. META, -1.28%,
Twitter Inc. TWTR, +1.18%,
Pinterest Inc. PINS, -0.30% and others in the grip of inflation, a war in Ukraine, foreign-exchange worries and a widening recession.
Snap’s desultory news sent shares tumbling in extended trading for Pinterest (-8%), Trade Desk Inc. TTD, +2.26%
(-5), Meta (-4%) and Google (-3%).
Deteriorating macroeconomic conditions have left advertisers with little choice but to delay or cancel buys. At the same time, intensifying competition from the likes of TikTok and others has deepened headwinds.
“As a smaller player, Snap is more susceptible but no platform is immune,” Insider Intelligence analyst Jasmine Enberg told MarketWatch. “I expect more of the same results next week” when Google and Meta report, she added.
Snap reporteda third-quarter net loss of $359.5 million, or 22 cents a share, compared with a loss of 5 cents a share a year ago. Analysts on average were expecting a loss of 24 cents a share.
Snap’s sales increased less than 6% to $1.13 billion, barely falling short of Street estimates of $1.14 billion. Daily active users rose 19% to 363 million. FactSet analysts had modeled 358.2 million.
Snap shares initially fell more than 20% in after-hours trading. They closed the regular trading session down 0.6% to $10.79. Shares of Snap have nosedived 77% this year, while the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.80%
is down 23%.
Shares of International Business Machines Corp. rallied in extended trading Wednesday, after the tech software, consulting and infrastructure giant reported third-quarter results that beat expectations and offered up a more upbeat full-year sales forecast.
IBM IBM, -0.35%
reported earnings as Wall Street tries to gauge the impact of a tough foreign-exchange environment, and the state of business spending on tech services amid worries over a downturn. But the company saw gains in hybrid cloud services, products like open-source software platform Red Hat, its consulting services and its zSystems servers and software.
“Globally, clients view technology as an opportunity to enhance their business, which is evident in the results across our portfolio,” Chief Executive Arvind Krishna said in a statement. He added that he now expects full-year sales growth “above our mid-single-digit model.”
That’s a bit more optimistic than the forecast he gave over the summer, when IBM reported second-quarter results. Krishna, at that time, said he continued “to expect full-year revenue growth at the high end of our mid-single-digit model.”
Wall Street expects IBM’s full-year sales to come in at $59.667 billion, according to FactSet. Analysts expect 2022 earnings per share of $9.28. IBM also said it continued to expect around $10 billion in consolidated free cash flow for the year.
For the third quarter, the company reported a net loss of $3.2 billion, or $3.54 per share, compared with a $1.1 billion profit, or $1.25 per share, in the year-earlier period. On an adjusted basis, IBM earned $1.81 per share.
Sales came in at $14.1 billion, compared with $13.3 billion a year ago.
Analysts polled by FactSet expected adjusted earnings per share of $1.79, on revenue of $13.517 billion.
Revenue in the company’s software segment grew 7.5%. Consulting revenue rose 5.4%, while the company’s infrastructure segment jumped 14.8%.
Shares gained 4.8% after hours on Wednesday.
Prior to the results, analysts had zeroed in on the impact of the strong dollar and what Morgan Stanley, in a recent note, described as “continued wage pressure in consulting.” IBM has also been trying to lean more into cloud and AI technology, unloading some businesses in an effort to narrow its focus.
Last year, in a move toward that goal, IBM spun off its infrastructure services business into Kyndryl Holdings KD, -2.85%.
But afterward, some analysts raised questions about IBM’s ability to grow sales and compete in the cloud-services industry. Francisco Partners, an investment firm, this year also acquired health-care data and analytics assets that were part of IBM’s Watson Health segment.
But during the spring, Krishna said he saw “demand staying strong” even if economic growth flattens or enters into a brief recession, with the decision to halt business in Russia, following its invasion of Ukraine, the only drag on results.
IBM stock is down 8% year to date. By comparison, the S&P 500 Index SPX, -0.67%
is down 22%.
You probably already know that because of market-capitalization weighting, a broad index such as the S&P 500 SPX, -0.67%
can be concentrated in a handful of stocks. Index funds are popular for good reasons — they tend to have low expenses and it is difficult for active managers to outperform them over the long term.
For example, look at the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust SPY, -0.71%,
which tracks the S&P 500 by holding all of its stocks by the same weighting as the index. Five stocks — Apple Inc. AAPL, +0.08%,
Microsoft Corp. MSFT, -0.85%,
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, -1.11%,
Alphabet Inc. GOOG, -1.08%
But there are other considerations when it comes to diversification — namely, factors. During an interview, Scott Weber of Vaughan Nelson Investment Management in Houston explained how groups of stock and commodities can move together, adding to a lack of diversification in a typical portfolio or index fund.
Weber co-manages the $293 million Natixis Vaughan Nelson Select Fund VNSAX, -0.96%,
which carries a five-star rating (the highest) from investment-researcher Morningstar, and has outperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500.
Vaughan Nelson is a Houston-based affiliate of Natixis Investment Managers, with about $13 billion in assets under management, including $5 billion managed under the same strategy as the fund, including the Natixis Vaughan Nelson Select ETF VNSE, -0.87%.
The ETF was established in Sept, 2020, so does not yet have a Morningstar rating.
Factoring-in the factors
Weber explained how he and colleagues incorporate 35 factors into their portfolio selection process. For example, a fund might hold shares of real-estate investment trusts (REITs), financial companies and energy producers. These companies are in different sectors, as defined by Standard & Poor’s. Yet their performance may be correlated.
Weber pointed out that REITs, for example, were broken out of the financial sector to become their own sector in 2016. “Did that make REIT’s more sensitive to interest rates? The answer is no,” he said. “The S&P sector buckets are somewhat better than arbitrary, but they are not perfect.”
Of course 2022 is something of an exception, with so many assets dropping in price at the same time. But over the long term, factor analysis can identify correlations and lead money managers to limit their investments in companies, sectors or industries whose prices tend to move together. This style has helped the Natixis Vaughan Nelson Select Fund outperform against its benchmark, Weber said.
Getting back to the five largest components of the S&P 500, they are all tech-oriented, even though only two, Apple and Microsoft, are in the information technology sector, while Alphabet is in the communications sector and Tesla is in the consumer discretionary sector. “Regardless of the sectors,” they tend to move together, Weber said.
Exposure to commodity prices, timing of revenue streams through economic cycles (which also incorporates currency exposure), inflation and many other items are additional factors that Weber and his colleagues incorporate into their broad allocation strategy and individual stock selections.
For example, you might ordinarily expect inflation, real estate and gold to move together, Weber said. But as we are seeing this year, with high inflation and rising interest rates, there is downward pressure on real-estate prices, while gold prices GC00, -0.01%
have declined 10% this year.
Digging further, the factors also encompass sensitivity of investments to U.S. and other countries’ government bonds of various maturities, credit spreads between corporate and government bonds in developed countries, exchange rates, and measures of liquidity, price volatility and momentum.
Stock selection
The largest holding of the Select fund is NextEra Energy Inc. NEE, -1.89%,
which owns FPL, Florida’s largest electric utility. FPL is phasing-out coal plants and replacing power-generating capacity with natural gas as well as wind and solar facilities.
Weber said: “There’s not a company on the planet that is better at getting alternate (meaning solar and wind) generation deployed. But because they own FPL, some of my investors say it is one of the largest carbon emitters on the planet.”
He added that “as a consequence of their skill in operating, they re generating amazing returns for investors.” NextEra’s share shave returned 446% over the past 10 years. One practice that has helped to elevate the company’s return on equity, and presumably its stock price, has been “dropping assets down” into NextEra Energy Partners LP NEP, -2.61%,
which NEE manages, Weber said. He added that the assets put into the partnership tend to be “great at cash-flow generation, but not on achieving growth.”
When asked for more examples of stocks in the fund that may provide excellent long-term returns, Weber mentioned Monolithic Power Systems Inc. MPWR, -0.24%,
as a way to take advantage of the broad decline in semiconductor stocks this year. (The iShares Semiconductor ETF SOXX, +0.64%
has declined 21% this year, while industry stalwarts Nvidia Corp. NVDA, +0.70%
and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. AMD, -1.19%
are down 59% and 60%, respectively.)
He said Monolithic Power has been consistently making investments that improve its return on invested capital (ROIC). A company’s ROIC is its profit divided by the sum of the carrying value of stock it has issued over the years and its current debt. It doesn’t reflect the stock price and is considered a good measure of a management team’s success at making investment decisions and managing projects. Monolithic Power’s ROICC for 2021 was 21.8%, according to FactSet, rising from 13.2% five years earlier.
“We want to see a business generating a return on capital in excess of its cost of capital. In addition, they need to invest their capital at incrementally improving returns,” Weber said.
Another example Weber gave of a stock held by the fund is Dollar General Corp. DG, +0.33%,
which he called a much better operator than rival Dollar Tree Inc. DLTR, +0.14%,
which owns Family Dollar. He cited DG’s roll-out of frozen-food and fresh food offerings, as well as its growth runway: “They still have 8,000 or 9,000 stores to build-out” in the U.S., he said.
Fund holdings
In order to provide a full current list of stocks held under Weber’s strategy, here are the 27 stocks held by the the Natixis Vaughan Select ETF as of Sept. 30. The largest 10 positions made up 49% of the portfolio:
You can click on the tickers for more about each company. Click here for a detailed guide to the wealth of information available free on the MarketWatch.com quote page.
Fund performance
The Natixis Vaughan Select Fund was established on June 29, 2012. Here’s a 10-year chart showing the total return of the fund’s Class A shares against that of the S&P 500, with dividends reinvested. Sales charges are excluded from the chart and the performance numbers. In the current environment for mutual-fund distribution, sales charges are often waived for purchases of new shares through investment advisers.
FactSet
Here’s a comparison of returns for 2022 and average annual returns for various periods of the fund’s Class A shares to that of the S&P 500 and its Morningstar fund category through Oct. 18:
shares were trading sharply higher after the streaming giant posted better-than-expected subscriber growth for the third quarter.
The company added 2.41 million net new subscribers in the quarter, beating its own forecast of 1 million additions. Netflix (ticker: NFLX) said it expects to add another 4.5 million subscribers in the December quarter.
United Airlines Holdings Inc. stock rallied after hours Tuesday after the airline said it expected the travel rebound to weather a shakier economy in the months ahead and reported third-quarter results that beat expectations.
“Looking forward through the end of the year, the airline expects the strong COVID recovery trends to continue to overcome the recessionary pressures in the macroeconomic environment,” company executives said in a statement.
That backdrop — along with tighter flight networks and changes in how people work — helped justify the airline’s more upbeat forecast for the fourth quarter. United Airlines UAL, +3.19%
said it expected adjusted fourth-quarter operating margin of around 10%, the first time the figure would end above pre-pandemic 2019 levels.
United also forecast adjusted fourth-quarter earnings per share of between $2.00 and $2.25, well above FactSet forecasts for 98 cents per share. The carrier also said it expected a 24% to 25% gain in total fourth-quarter unit revenue — a much-watched industry metric that measures sales as spread out across an airline’s flight capacity — when compared to the same period in 2019.
Adjusted fourth-quarter unit costs were seen up between 11% and 12%, and roughly 15% for the full year, when compared to the respective periods in 2019.
For the third quarter, United reported net income of $942 million, or $2.86 per share, compared with $473 million, or $1.44 per share, in the prior-year quarter.
On an adjusted basis, the company earned $2.81 per share, compared with a $1.02 per-share loss in the quarter a year ago and $4.07 in 2019. Revenue was $12.877 billion, compared with $7.75 billion a year ago and $11.38 billion in 2019.
Analysts polled by FactSet expected adjusted earnings of $2.28 per share, on revenue of $12.743 billion.
Shares jumped 7% after the market’s close. American Airlines Group Inc. AAL, +3.79%,
which reports earnings on Thursday, rose 3.6% after hours.
United, in its earnings release, also called out three demand trends that it said were “more than fully offsetting any economic headwinds.” It said that “Air travel is still in the COVID recovery phase, hybrid work gives customers the freedom and flexibility to travel for leisure more often, and external supply challenges will limit industry supply for years to come.”
The carrier said it expected total flight capacity, a measure of available seats on flights, to be down between 9% and 10% for the fourth quarter and down around 13% for the full year, when compared to 2019 levels.
United reported as analysts look for cracks in the travel industry’s rebound and holiday demand, after eager travelers this summer ran into flight delays and cancellations, insufficient staffing and severe weather. Airfares and fuel costs are more expensive — a function of strong demand and thinner supplies. Aircraft supply is tight, some executives have said. Airlines have also tried to bulk up flight crews, particularly pilots, after encouraging buyouts in 2020, as the pandemic left the industry without passengers and burning through cash.
Delta Air Lines Inc. DAL, +3.34%
last week said it expected fourth-quarter sales to grow from pre-pandemic levels, as demand for travel, after two years of pandemic-related restraint, holds up against rising prices.
“The travel recovery continues as consumer spend shifts to experiences and demand improves in corporate and international,” Delta CEO Ed Bastian said in its earnings release.
Raymond James analyst Savanthi Syth, in a research note last week, said she expected United to see similar momentum, helped by corporate travel and international demand.
She said American and JetBlue Airways Corp. JBLU, +1.90%
should benefit to a lesser degree, “due to large corp and transatlantic exposure at the former and large coastal-city exposure at the latter.” JetBlue reports earnings on Oct. 25.
Delta’s international-unit revenue growth outpaced that in its domestic business for the first time since the pandemic started. Leisure travel to Europe helped propel results, as did strong demand for Delta’s premium-class seats. Bastian said he expected Delta’s flight network to be fully restored by summer next year.
“Demand has not come close to being quenched by a hectic summer travel season,” he said on Delta’s earnings call. “At the same time, industry supply is constrained by aircraft availability, regional pilot shortages and hiring and training needs.”
Delta rose 3% after the bell on Tuesday.
United Airlines stock is down 15% so far this year. By comparison, the S&P 500 Index SPX, +1.14%
is down 22% over that time.
The numbers: The National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) monthly confidence fell 8 points to 38 in October, the trade group said on Tuesday.
It’s the tenth month in a row that the index has fallen.
Outside of the pandemic, the October reading of 38 is the lowest level since August 2012.
A year ago, the index stood at 80.
The index’s ten-month drop is a new record. The index last fell for 8 months straight in 2006 and 2007.
Key details: All three gauges that underpin the overall builder-confidence index fell.
The gauge that marks current sales conditions fell by 9 points.
The component that assesses sales expectations for the next six months fell by 11 points.
And the gauge that measures traffic of prospective buyers fell by 6 points.
All four NAHB regions posted a drop in builder confidence, led by the south and the west.
It’s also likely that this year will be the first time since 2011 that single-family starts see a decline, the NAHB added.
Big picture: Builders continue to struggle to find buyers with the current rate environment.
Now they’re saying they’re worried about that depressed demand impacting supply moving forward.
Specifically, they’re concerned about housing affordability worsening, with potentially fewer new homes being built in the future.
Mortgage rates have doubled from last year, now exceeding 7%, which has considerably cooled buyer demand.
Home price growth is moderating, but prices have not come down substantially — yet.
The median sales price for a new home was $436,800 in August, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
What the NAHB said: Builders are expecting single-family starts to fall for the first time in 11 years — and expect additional declines through 2023, said NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz, due to the Federal Reserve’s projected rate hikes to control inflation.
“While some analysts have suggested that the housing market is now more ‘balanced,’ the truth is that the homeownership rate will decline in the quarters ahead as higher interest rates, and ongoing elevated construction costs continue to price out a large number of prospective buyers,” he added.
“This situation is unhealthy and unsustainable,” Jerry Konter, a home builder and developer from Savannah, Ga. and the NAHB’s chairman, said in a statement. “Policymakers must address this worsening housing affordability crisis,” he added.
What are they saying? “The housing sector – sentiment, building activity and sales – is collapsing under the weight of a rapid increase in interest rates and elevated prices, which are crimping affordability and demand,” Rubeela Farooqi, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote in a note.
So expect building activity to be depressed, she added.
Market reaction: The yield on the 10-year Treasury note TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.989%
fell to 3.98% on Tuesday morning.
While the SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF XHB, +2.15%
traded slightly higher during the morning session, and the big home-builder stocks, from D.R. Horton Inc. DHI, +2.90%
to Toll Brothers TOL, +1.87%
to Lennar LEN, +2.97%,
edged higher.
This may surprise you: Wall Street analysts expect earnings for the S&P 500 to increase 8% during 2023, despite all the buzz about a possible recession as the Federal Reserve tightens monetary policy to quell inflation.
Ken Laudan, a portfolio manager at Kornitzer Capital Management in Mission, Kan., isn’t buying it. He expects an “earnings recession” for the S&P 500 SPX, +2.78%
— that is, a decline in profits of around 10%. But he also expects that decline to set up a bottom for the stock market.
Laudan’s predictions for the S&P 500 ‘earnings recession’ and bottom
Laudan, who manages the $83 million Buffalo Large Cap Fund BUFEX, -2.86%
and co-manages the $905 million Buffalo Discovery Fund BUFTX, -2.82%,
said during an interview: “It is not unusual to see a 20% hit [to earnings] in a modest recession. Margins have peaked.”
The consensus among analysts polled by FactSet is for weighted aggregate earnings for the S&P 500 to total $238.23 a share in 2023, which would be an 8% increase from the current 2022 EPS estimate of $220.63.
Laudan said his base case for 2023 is for earnings of about $195 to $200 a share and for that decline in earnings (about 9% to 12% from the current consensus estimate for 2022) to be “coupled with an economic recession of some sort.”
He expects the Wall Street estimates to come down, and said that “once Street estimates get to $205 or $210, I think stocks will take off.”
He went further, saying “things get really interesting at 3200 or 3300 on the S&P.” The S&P 500 closed at 3583.07 on Oct. 14, a decline of 24.8% for 2022, excluding dividends.
Laudan said the Buffalo Large Cap Fund was about 7% in cash, as he was keeping some powder dry for stock purchases at lower prices, adding that he has been “fairly defensive” since October 2021 and was continuing to focus on “steady dividend-paying companies with strong balance sheets.”
Leaders for the stock market’s recovery
After the market hits bottom, Laudan expects a recovery for stocks to begin next year, as “valuations will discount and respond more quickly than the earnings will.”
He expects “long-duration technology growth stocks” to lead the rally, because “they got hit first.” When asked if Nvidia Corp. NVDA, +6.14%
and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. AMD, +3.69%
were good examples, in light of the broad decline for semiconductor stocks and because both are held by the Buffalo Large Cap Fund, Laudan said: “They led us down and they will bounce first.”
Laudan said his “largest tech holding” is ASML Holding N.V. ASML, +3.79%,
which provides equipment and systems used to fabricate computer chips.
Among the largest tech-oriented companies, the Buffalo Large Cap fund also holds shares of Apple Inc. AAPL, +3.09%,
Microsoft Corp. MSFT, +3.88%,
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +6.63%
and Alphabet Inc. GOOG, +3.91%
Laudan also said he had been “overweight’ in UnitedHealth Group Inc. UNH, +1.77%,
Danaher Corp. DHR, +2.64%
and Linde PLC LIN, +2.25%
recently and had taken advantage of the decline in Adobe Inc.’s ADBE, +2.32%
price following the announcement of its $20 billion acquisition of Figma, by scooping up more shares.
Summarizing the declines
To illustrate what a brutal year it has been for semiconductor stocks, the iShares Semiconductor ETF SOXX, +2.12%,
which tracks the PHLX Semiconductor Index SOX, +2.29%
of 30 U.S.-listed chip makers and related equipment manufacturers, has dropped 44% this year. Then again, SOXX had risen 38% over the past three years and 81% for five years, underlining the importance of long-term thinking for stock investors, even during this terrible bear market for this particular tech space.
Here’s a summary of changes in stock prices (again, excluding dividends) and forward price-to-forward-earnings valuations during 2022 through Oct. 14 for every stock mentioned in this article. The stocks are sorted alphabetically:
You can click on the tickers for more about each company. Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available free on the MarketWatch quote page.
The forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 declined to 16.9 as of the close on Oct. 14 from 24.5 at the end of 2021, while the forward P/E for SOXX declined to 13.2 from 27.1.
Tesla shares could decline dramatically — and that could mean disaster for a number of stocks that have already seen deep share-price cuts, according to equity research firm New Constructs.
The research firm, which uses machine learning and natural language processing to parse corporate filings and model economic earnings, called the stocks in danger “zombie stocks,” and defined them as companies with poor business models that are burning cash at an alarming rate and are at risk of seeing their stock decline to $0 per share.
The research firm estimates there could be some 300 zombie companies across the marketplace.
“The Federal Reserve’s aggressive rate hikes so far in 2022 have ended the era of free money and exposed a worrisome dynamic throughout capital markets: zombie stocks,” wrote New Constructs CEO David Trainer, in a note.
New Constructs does not define Tesla Inc. TSLA, +7.01%
as a “zombie stock,” citing CEO Elon Musk’s ability to raise capital, but does see the electric car manufacturer as a bellwether for the sector. “It shares many of the common characteristics of a zombie stock, such as an outrageous valuation and high cash burn,” wrote Trainer. “We believe Tesla’s unrelenting share price rise over the past three years – where investors completely ignored company fundamentals – inspired the birth of many of today’s zombie stocks.”
The company’s stock was trading around $220 on Monday, an increase of over 1,000% compared to three years ago. But Trainer feels that Tesla is at risk of falling more than 80% to $25 a share.
Tesla’s stock has fallen 37.6% in 2022, outpacing the S&P 500 Index’s SPX, +2.65%
decline of 22.7%.
“Its valuation remains nosebleed high because the cash flow expectations baked into the stock price are unreasonably optimistic,” Trainer wrote. “Our message to investors is to take profits in Tesla and avoid zombie stocks at all costs.”
“Investors are now fed up with these kinds of companies, especially amid this year’s stock market volatility,” wrote New Constructs’ Trainer. “If investors start to give up on Tesla and take profits on the stock, which is up over 1,000% over the past three years, that spells terrible news for all of the other zombie stocks that don’t have the cash-raising luxury that Tesla has.”
It’s going to be a big year for Halloween, despite millions of Americans feeling under financial pressure due to inflation.
Total spending is expected to hit $10.6 billion, an increase of 5% or $500 million on last year, the National Retail Federation estimates. That’s up $2 billion or 20% on the $8.8 billion Halloween expenditure in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Spending on costumes expect to reach $3.6 billion this year, the NRF survey finds, the highest since 2017. Adult costume spending could reach $1.7 billion this year, $200 million more than last year.
More than half (57%) of Americans said that inflation did impact their Halloween spending, according to a separate LendingTree Halloween spending survey. In fact, nearly a quarter of this group said they were buying less candy.
Inflation was 8.2% in September compared to last year, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. It was among the highest level in the past four decades.
Candy and chewing gum rose 13.1% year-on-year in September, the highest increase on record, the BLS said. To put that in context: Candy and chewing gum increased 13% from December 1997 to December 2006.
“Candy and chewing gum rose 13.1% year-on-year in September, the highest increase on record.”
A Home Depot spokesperson confirmed the initial sellout of the skeleton in summer, and said the company has been releasing more of these items periodically since then.
Supply-chain disruptions could also complicate the competition. During Hershey’s HSY, +0.57% second-quarter earnings call in July, Chief Executive Officer Michele Buck said the candy manufacturer had to prioritize the everyday candy packaging over the Halloween ones. She said that decision was “critical to enable us to increase advertising and merchandising levels.”
In an email to MarketWatch, however, a Hershey’s spokesperson said this decision was not a sign of shortage, adding that the brand had produced more candies for the season than they had in previous years, as Halloween demand remains high.
“Like every season over the past few years, sell-through at retail remains high with people purchasing candy, décor and other seasonal items earlier and more often. As a result, seasonally packaged candy may be more limited on the shelf as we get to the final week of the season. Fortunately, the same great brands in snack sizes are available to help fill trick-or-treat bags and buckets,” she said.
“On average, Americans plan to spend between $100 and $169 on Halloween candy, décor, cards and costumes.”
On average, Americans plan to spend $100 on average for Halloween candy, décor, cards and costumes, the National Retail Federation said. LendingTree estimates that households will spend $169 this year, with six-figure salary earners and parents with young children planning to spend the most — $340 and $309 respectively.
More than a third of the consumers surveyed admit they plan to spend more than they can afford this year. Generation Z — those aged 18 to 24 — and parents with younger children are the most likely to admit to overspending.
“With the worst of the pandemic further in the rearview mirror, people are excited to get back to spending on the things they love most —, particularly the things they maybe couldn’t fully enjoy over the last few years,” LendingTree chief credit analyst Matt Schulz said.
The most common reason for overspending: 44% of respondents said they spent more than they had expected, while 34% said they were making their children happy.
The NRF concluded that 40% of people are shopping at discount stores this Halloween, 36% at specialty Halloween costume stores, and 31% online. Another 11% said they will shop at thrift stores and resale shops.
“Social media is playing an increasingly important role in consumer behavior, and Halloween is no different,” Phil Rist, executive vice-president of strategy atProsper Insights & Analytics, said. “Younger consumers, particularly those under the age of 25, will look to platforms like Instagram and TikTok for costume inspiration this year.”
The world needs metals like copper, iron, and cobalt, but investors don’t seem to need mining stocks. They should reconsider.
Investor reluctance is understandable. Why get exposure to an industry whose profits hinge on the health of industrial activity when the global economy seems headed for a downturn that would probably send metal prices lower?
WATERBURY, Conn. (AP) — The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones should pay $965 million to people who suffered from his false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax, a jury in Connecticut decided Wednesday.
The verdict is the second big judgment against the Infowars host over his relentless promotion of the lie that the 2012 massacre never happened, and that the grieving families seen in news coverage were actors hired as part of a plot to take away people’s guns.
It came in a lawsuit filed by the relatives of five children and three educators killed in the mass shooting, plus an FBI agent who was among the first responders to the scene. A Texas jury in August awarded nearly $50 million to the parents of another slain child.
“ Experts testified that Jones’s audience swelled when he made Sandy Hook a topic on the show, as did his revenue from product sales. ”
The Connecticut trial featured tearful testimony from parents and siblings of the victims, who told about how they were threatened and harassed for years by people who believed the lies told on Jones’s show.
Strangers showed up at their homes to record them. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, testified that people mailed rape threats to her house.
Mark Barden told of how conspiracy theorists had urinated on the grave of his 7-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis discusses a question from the jury with attorneys on Tuesday.
H. John Voorhees III/Hearst Connecticut Media/AP
Testifying during the trial, Jones acknowledged he had been wrong about Sandy Hook. The shooting was real, he said. But both in the courtroom and on his show, he was defiant.
He called the proceedings a “kangaroo court,” mocked the judge, called the plaintiffs’ lawyer an ambulance chaser and labeled the case an affront to free speech rights. He claimed it was a conspiracy by Democrats and the media to silence him and put him out of business. “I’ve already said ‘I’m sorry’ hundreds of times, and I’m done saying I’m sorry,” he said during his testimony.
Twenty children and six adults died in the shooting on Dec. 14, 2012. The defamation trial was held at a courthouse in Waterbury, about 20 miles from Newtown, where the attack took place.
The lawsuit accused Jones and Infowars’ private parent company, Free Speech Systems, of using the mass killing to build his audience and make millions of dollars.
Experts testified that Jones’s audience swelled when he made Sandy Hook a topic on the show, as did his revenue from product sales.
In both the Texas lawsuit and the one in Connecticut, judges found the company liable for damages by default after Jones failed to cooperate with court rules on sharing evidence, including failing to turn over records that might have showed whether Infowars had profited from knowingly spreading misinformation about mass killings.
Because he was already found liable, Jones was barred from mentioning free-speech rights and other topics during his testimony.
Jones now faces a third trial, in Texas around the end of the year, in a lawsuit filed by the parents of another child killed in the shooting.
It is unclear how much of the verdicts Jones can afford to pay.
During the trial in Texas, he testified he couldn’t afford any judgment over $2 million. Free Speech Systems has filed for bankruptcy protection. But an economist testified in the Texas proceeding that Jones and his company were worth as much as $270 million.
TOKYO (AP) — Asian shares were mostly lower on Wednesday following another volatile day on Wall Street, as traders braced for updates on inflation and corporate earnings.
South Korea’s Kospi 180721, +0.34%
lost 0.1% to 2,189.86 after the Bank of Korea raised its key rate by 0.5 percentage point, amid the backdrop of Fed rate hikes in the U.S. and growing inflation risks from the weak won and rebounding global oil prices.
In currency trading the Japanese yen declined to a 24-year low against the U.S. dollar JPYUSD, -0.24
at 146 yen-levels, raising expectations of another intervention by Tokyo to prop up the yen. By midday the dollar USDJPY, +0.24%
was at 146.17 yen, up from 145.80 late Tuesday. The euro EURUSD, +0.12%
cost 96.96 cents, inching down from 97.07 yen.
The weaker yen raises costs for both consumers and businesses who rely on imports of food, fuel and other needs, but the bigger purchasing power for foreign currencies is expected to boost tourism. Japan reopened fully to individual tourist travel this week after being closed for more than two years because of the pandemic.
Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 lost 0.2% to 26,348.73 in morning trading. Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 ASX10000, -1.54%
gained nearly 0.2% to 6,656.00. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng slipped 2% to 16,491.39, while the Shanghai Composite shed 1.2% to 2,943.24.
On Tuesday, the S&P 500 SPX, -0.65%
fell 0.7%, marking its fifth straight loss, closing at 3,588.84. The Nasdaq COMP, -1.10%
dropped 1.1% to 10,426.19. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.12%
added 0.1% to 29,239.19, while the Russell 2000 index RUT, +0.06%
rose 1 point, or about 0.1%, to 1,692.92.
Recession fears have been weighing heavily on markets as stubbornly hot inflation burns businesses and consumers. Economic growth has been slowing as consumers temper spending and the Federal Reserve and other central banks raise interest rates.
The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday cut its forecast for global economic growth in 2023 to 2.7%, down from the 2.9% it had estimated in July. The cut comes as Europe faces a particularly high risk of a recession with energy costs soaring amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Wall Street is closely watching the Federal Reserve as it continues to aggressively raise its benchmark interest rate to make borrowing more expensive and slow economic growth. The goal is to cool inflation, but the strategy carries the risk of slowing the economy too much and pushing it into a recession.
“The market desperately wants a reason for the Fed to be able to stop tightening and the data recently hasn’t given them that opening with respect to inflation,” said Willie Delwiche, investment strategist at All Star Charts.
Computer-chip manufacturers continued slipping in the wake of the U.S. government’s decision to tighten export controls on semiconductors and chip manufacturing equipment to China. Qualcomm QCOM, -3.99%
fell 4%.
Investors still expect the Fed to raise its overnight rate by three-quarters of a percentage point next month, the fourth such increase. That’s triple the usual amount, and would bring the rate up to a range of 3.75% to 4%. It started the year at virtually zero.
The government will also release its report on wholesale prices Wednesday, providing an update on how inflation is hitting businesses. The closely watched report on consumer prices will be released on Thursday, and a report on retail sales is due Friday.
“Everyone is still hoping that every inflation report will be the one that shows that pressure is alleviating,” Delwiche said.
Wall Street is also gearing up for the start of the latest corporate earnings reporting season, which could provide a clearer picture of inflation’s impact.
Among the companies reporting quarterly results this week: PepsiCo PEP, +0.48%,
Delta Air Lines DAL, -1.97%
and Domino’s Pizza DPZ, -1.99%.
Banks including Citigroup C, -2.76%
and JPMorgan Chase JPM, -2.89%
will also report results.
In energy trading, benchmark U.S. crude CL00, -0.75%
lost 82 cents to $88.53 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. U.S. crude-oil prices fell 2% Tuesday. Brent crude BRN00, -0.56%,
the international pricing standard, fell 62 cents to $93.67 a barrel.
With four weeks until Election Day, congressional candidates are on track to break midterm fundraising records, having raised nearly $2.5 billion so far this cycle. That’s already 70% more than what was raised during the 2014 cycle and just $200 million shy of the total raised during the full 2018 cycle.
This cycle has also seen record-shattering outside spending, topping $1 billion through the beginning of October, according to an OpenSecrets estimate.
The increase in spending and fundraising is due in large part to the involvement of millionaire and billionaire megadonors who have sought to influence the outcome of an election in which both chambers of Congress are in play.
“When megadonors pump millions of dollars into super PACs, they get to help call the shots,” said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, a nonpartisan political reform organization. “Massive spending from a megadonor can influence what issues are talked about on the campaign trail and in Congress.”
Super PACs are independent political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money but are not allowed to coordinate with a candidate or campaign. Due to contribution limits, such as those restricting individuals’ candidate contributions to $2,900 per election per candidate, most megadonor spending goes to super PACs.
A MarketWatch analysis of Federal Election Commission data through the end of September shows that these 10 business moguls and philanthropists are the biggest federal-level donors this cycle.
Source: MarketWatch analysis of FEC data as of Sept. 30, 2022 Note: Partisan breakdown includes non-party affiliated PACs with over 95% of their spending benefitting one party, data has been rounded to the nearest thousand
Big spending by itself doesn’t automatically mean winning. There have been notable instances of the financially strongest candidates losing (such as crypto-backed House candidate Carrick Flynn earlier this year and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s self-financed presidential bid) — but money can certainly help put a candidate on the right track.
“Money alone doesn’t guarantee electoral success, but every candidate prefers to be the one with more money to spend,” Beckel said. He added: “Outside spending on behalf of a candidate isn’t a silver bullet that’s going to guarantee electoral success. But it goes a long way to boosting somebody’s name recognition, and to presenting them as a viable candidate — somebody who has the resources to run a competitive campaign.”
Information about the spending by the top 10 donors this cycle has been compiled from MarketWatch’s analysis of FEC data and filings, super PAC websites and previously reported comments. Read on to find out who are the top 10 biggest donors this cycle.
10. Ryan Salame — $19 million
Ryan Salame, the co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, a subsidiary of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, founded a hybrid PAC earlier this year called American Dream Federal Action. The vast majority ($15 million) of the $19 million Salame has spent this cycle has gone into bankrolling the PAC, which has spent $2.4 million in independent expenditures supporting Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis, $2 million supporting Republican Senate candidate Katie Britt from Alabama, and $1.2 million each supporting Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman and Brad Finstad, a GOP congressional candidate in Minnesota.
On its website, the PAC describes itself as “organization dedicated to electing forward-looking candidates — those who want to protect America’s long term economic and national security by advancing smart policy decisions now.” A representative for Salame didn’t respond to a request for comment.
9. Lawrence Ellison — $21 million
The co-founder of Oracle ORCL, +0.26%
has similarly bankrolled a PAC this election cycle — giving a total $20 million to Opportunity Matters Fund Inc. The super PAC has largely held onto its funds so far, recent FEC records show, having $17 million cash on hand as of the end of August. Of the independent expenditures it has made this cycle, it spent the most on Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker ($1.3 million), Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson ($1.3 million) and North Carolina Senate candidate and current Republican Rep. Ted Budd ($1.1 million). A representative for Ellison didn’t respond to a request for comment.
8. Stephen Schwarzman — $22 million
Billionaire Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of private-equity giant Blackstone BX, -2.41%,
is the eighth biggest donor at the federal level this cycle. In March, Schwarzman gave $10 million to both the Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund, super PACs aimed at obtaining a Republican majority in the Senate and House, respectively. A representative for Schwarzman didn’t respond to a request for comment.
7. Fred Eychaner — $22 million
Fred Eychaner has also contributed $22 million so far this cycle, but unlike most of the spending on this list, his has been directed toward Democratic causes. The chairman of Chicago-based Newsweb Corporation has given $9 million to the House Majority PAC and $8 million to the Senate Majority PAC, as well as just under $1.5 million to the Democratic National Committee and several hundred thousands to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. A representative for Eychaner didn’t respond to a request for comment.
6. Peter Thiel — $30 million
Venture capitalist Peter Thiel was heavily involved in backing Ohio Republican J.D. Vance’s primary bid, giving $15 million in the spring to the Vance-aligned Protect Ohio Values PAC.
The massive primary investment was “historic” and record-setting, according to Beckel, who added that Thiel’s involvement in the Ohio Senate primary could mark “a new chapter of how mega donors are choosing to play in politics.”
“I think it’s become clear for a lot of megadonors that there are high stakes to a lot of primaries, and by spending in the primary, where there is typically lower turnout than in say, a statewide general election, they can get a lot of bang for their buck by investing in a primary election,” Beckel added.
Thiel has indicated that he doesn’t intend to put any more money toward Vance’s bid as he reportedly believes the Ohio candidate is on track to win, and instead will focus his funding on Arizona Republican Blake Masters’ bid to oust Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly in the final weeks leading up to the midterm election.
Thiel, known for his roles in PayPal PYPL, -1.69%,
Palantir PLTR, -0.25%
and Facebook META, -3.92%,
has also given a total $15 million to the Masters-aligned PAC, Saving Arizona, with his most recent contribution in July. Both Vance and Masters are venture capitalists, but Masters has worked with Thiel. He served as chief operating officer of Thiel Capital and president of the Thiel Foundation, and he co-authored a book on startups with Thiel in 2014. A representative for Thiel didn’t respond to a request for comment.
5. Jeff Yass — $33 million
Options trader Jeff Yass, who founded trading firm Susquehanna International Group, has contributed about $33 million on a federal level this cycle. Yass has given $15 million to the School Freedom Fund, or the equivalent of 97% of the PAC’s total fundraising. The group focuses on the issue of school choice, and its website states that some bureaucrats “hindered the development and education of our youth through school closures, mask mandates, critical race theory, and more.”
Aside from the School Freedom Fund, Yass’ other biggest contributions are to the conservative Club for Action ($6.5 million), Kentucky Freedom ($5 million), Protect Freedom ($2 million) and Crypto Freedom ($1.9 million). A representative for Yass didn’t respond to a request for comment.
4. Sam Bankman-Fried — $40 million
Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and CEO of FTX, is the main funder behind Protect Our Future PAC, giving it $27 million of the $28 million it raised this cycle.
The organization says on its website that it focuses on promoting Democratic candidates championing pandemic preparedness and prevention “so this is the last time in our lifetime, and our children’s lifetimes, that we will face the devastation that has gripped communities across the U.S. since 2020.”
The group spent more than $10 million supporting Democrat Carrick Flynn’s House bid in Oregon. Flynn lost his primary in May by 18 points despite his massive outside spending advantage. In addition to Flynn, the group has made over $1 million in independent expenditures each supporting Democratic congressional candidates Lucy McBath, a current representative from Georgia; Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Adam Hollier of Michigan, Valerie Foushee of North Carolina and Shontel Brown, a current representative from Ohio.
Most of the other $10 million Bankman-Fried spent this cycle has gone to the House Majority PAC ($6 million) and the crypto PAC GMI ($2 million).
While the vast majority of his spending has supported Democratic candidates and causes, Bankman-Fried does not classify himself as an exclusively Democratic donor — for instance he gave $105,000 to the Alabama Conservatives Fund in June and $45,000 to the NRCC in July.
He told Politico in August that he is “legitimately worried about doing things that will make people view me as partisan when it’s not how I feel … because I think it both misses what I’m trying to do and makes it harder for me to act constructively.” A representative for the FTX boss didn’t respond to a request for comment.
3. Richard Uihlein — $49 million
Richard Uihlein is the founder of the shipping and business supply company Uline, and is a longtime conservative donor. This cycle has seen nearly $50 million in political spending by him, with just over half of it going to Club for Growth Action. Uihlein has also given about $14 million to Restoration PAC, an organization that says it is “dedicated to strengthening the foundations that made America the greatest nation in the world: God, family, education, and community.”
Uihlein’s next largest contributions are to the conservative Team PAC ($2.5 million) and the Arkansas Patriots Fund ($2.2 million), which earlier this year made ad buys favoring Republican Sen. John Boozman’s primary opponent. A representative for Uihlein didn’t respond to a request for comment.
2. Ken Griffin — $51 million
With $51 million in federal-level political spending, Ken Griffin, CEO of hedge fund Citadel, is the second most prolific donor this cycle.
The biggest beneficiaries are the Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund with $18.5 million in contributions, the Senate Leadership Fund with $10 million and Honor Pennsylvania, a super PAC that backed Republican Dave McCormick’s Senate bid. McCormick lost in the primary to Mehmet Oz by less than a thousand votes.
While Griffin spent about $64 million during the last cycle, his $51 million figure this year marks by far the most he has spent during a midterm cycle. During the 2018 cycle, his contributions totaled less than $8 million.
A spokesperson for Griffin told MarketWatch that Griffin “supports leaders who are committed to protecting the American Dream and pursuing policies that will create a better future for the United States.”
“The right policies will focus on creating rewarding jobs, prioritizing public safety, and investing in a strong national defense,” his spokesperson said. “Preserving the American Dream will require that every child is well educated, can access great healthcare, and has the opportunity to succeed.”
1. George Soros — $129 million
Not one donor comes close to matching the sum that billionaire philanthropist George Soros has contributed this cycle: $129 million. However, much of that money hasn’t actually been put to work this cycle.
The majority of those on this list have focused their funding on Republican causes, but Soros’ money has gone to Democratic groups — specifically Democracy PAC II, whose $125 million in contributions comprises 99% of its fundraising. The super PAC spent more than $80 million on Democratic groups and candidates during the 2020 election.
A representative for Soros pointed MarketWatch to a Politico article from January, in which Soros said the $125 million is aimed at supporting pro-democracy “causes and candidates, regardless of political party” who are invested in “strengthening the infrastructure of American democracy: voting rights and civic participation, civil rights and liberties, and the rule of law” and called his contribution a “long-term investment” that will support political work beyond this year.
So far this cycle, Democracy PAC has spent very little and holds $113 million in available cash. Contributions the PAC has made this cycle include $5 million to the Senate Majority PAC, $2.5 million to One Georgia and $1 million to both Care in Action and House Majority PAC.
The Republican Party has an edge again in the generic ballot, and that advantage has reached a level last seen in late July, according to a RealClearPolitics average for that closely watched indicator.
Republicans are now scoring 46.0% support in the RCP average of generic ballots, a percentage point ahead of Democrats at 45.0%.
The GOP hit a 1-point edge last Wednesday, then saw a dip, but as of Tuesday was back at that level, as shown in the chart below.
It’s not a big advantage, but it’s the best showing for Republicans in RCP’s data for generic ballots since July 28, as Democrats had the advantage for much of August and September.
The generic ballot refers to a poll question that asks voters which party they would support in a congressional election without naming individual candidates. Analysts tend to see it as a useful indicator.
Other websites focused on political analysis and forecasting, such as FiveThirtyEight, still show Democrats with an edge in their data for generic ballots.
Election Day for the midterm contests is now five weeks away. Democrats have focused their campaigns on abortion rights after the Supreme Court’s June decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, while Republicans have seized on Americans’ frustration with high inflation.
The additional chart below is interactive and shows RCP’s data for the generic ballot over a longer time frame.
When the stock market has jumped two days in a row, as it has now, it is easy to become complacent.
But the Federal Reserve isn’t finished raising interest rates, and recession talk abounds. Stock investors aren’t out of the woods yet. That can make dividend stocks attractive if the yields are high and the companies produce more cash flow than they need to cover the payouts.
Below is a list of 21 stocks drawn from the S&P Composite 1500 Index SP1500, +3.12%
that appear to fit the bill. The S&P Composite 1500 is made up of the S&P 500 SPX, +3.06%,
the S&P 400 Mid Cap Index MID, +3.18%
and the S&P Small Cap 600 Index SML, +3.80%.
The purpose of the list is to provide a starting point for further research. These stocks may be appropriate for you if you are looking for income, but you should do your own assessment to form your own opinion about a company’s ability to remain competitive over the next decade.
Cash flow is key
One way to measure a company’s ability to pay dividends is to look at its free cash flow yield. Free cash flow is remaining cash flow after planned capital expenditures. This money can be used to pay for dividends, buy back shares (which can raise earnings and cash flow per share), or fund acquisitions, organic expansion or for other corporate purposes.
If we divide a company’s estimated annual free cash flow per share by its current share price, we have its estimated free cash flow yield. If we compare the free cash flow yield to the current dividend yield, we may see “headroom” for cash to be deployed in ways that can benefit shareholders.
For this screen, we began with the S&P Composite 1500, then narrowed the list as follows:
Dividend yield of at least 5.00%.
Consensus free cash flow estimate available for calendar 2023, among at least five analysts polled by FactSet. We used calendar-year estimates, even though fiscal years for many companies don’t match the calendar.
Estimated 2023 free cash flow yield of at least double the current dividend yield.
For real-estate investment trusts, dividend-paying ability is measured by funds from operations (FFO), a non-GAAP figure that adds depreciation and amortization back to earnings. Adjusted funds from operations (AFFO) takes this a step further, subtracting cash expected to be used to maintain properties. So for the two REITs on the list, the FCF yield column makes use of AFFO.
For many companies in the financial sector, especially banks and insurers, free cash flow figures aren’t available, so the screen made use of earnings-per-share estimates. These are generally considered to run close to actual cash flow for these heavily regulated industries.
Here are the 21 companies that passed the screen, with dividend yields of at least 5% and estimated 2023 FCF yields at least twice the current payout. They are sorted by dividend yield:
Any stock screen has its limitations. If you are interested in stocks listed here, it is best to do your own research, and it is easy to get started by clicking the tickers in the table for more information about each company. Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information for free on the MarketWatch quote page.
For the “estimated FCF yields,” consensus free cash flow estimates for calendar 2023 were used for all companies except the following:
For the REITs, (Uniti Group Inc. UNIT, +7.36%
and Macerich Co. MAC, +8.18%
), consensus AFFO estimates were used.
Consensus EPS estimates were used for Prudential Financial Inc. PRU, +5.66%,
Invesco Ltd. IVZ, +6.76%
and Franklin Resources Inc. BEN, +4.37%.
Vice Chairman Greg Abel, the likely successor to CEO Warren Buffett, bought about $68 million of the company’s shares last Thursday in what appears to be his first purchases of Berkshire stock since he assumed the position in 2018.
In several Form 4 filings Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Abel disclosed that he purchased 168 Berkshire Hathaway (ticker: BRK/A, BRK/B) Class A shares through the Gregory Abel Revocable Trust on behalf of his wife, children, and other family members.
One cruel truth the stock market confirmed this past week is that trying to pick the bottom for technology stocks is a fool’s errand. The Nasdaq Composite’s terrible September—it was down 10.5% on the month—has made the bottom-fishing that took place over the summer look ill-advised. As I’ve noted before, the first downturn in tech earlier this year was all about valuations. This new phase of the decline is all about softening earnings. When it comes to price-to-earnings ratios, the market is running into a denominator problem.
The market downturn, the weaker economy, and the reversal of some pandemic-era trends have exposed weaknesses in the business models of companies such as
Peloton Interactive
(SNAP), and investors have adjusted valuations accordingly. But there are still some powerful underlying secular trends that should eventually drive tech stocks higher. Investors with long time horizons and strong stomachs might consider inching into the market. I have a few ideas on where to look.
Stocks declined again on Friday, closing out September with large losses across the board as the rally from the June lows partway through August faded into memory.
The S&P 500 SPX, -1.51%
fell 1.5% on Friday. The benchmark index slumped 9.3% for September, leading to a 2022 loss of 24.8%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -1.71%
gave up 1.7% on Friday, for a September decline of 8.8%. The Dow has now fallen 20.9% for 2022. The Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -1.51%
pulled back 1.5% on Friday for a September drop of 10.5% and a year-to-date plunge of 32.4%. (All price changes in this article exclude dividends.)
Below is a list of stocks in the S&P 500 that fell the most during September.
Nike Inc. NKE, -12.81%
was down 13% on Friday for a September decline of 22%, after the company warned that discounting to clear inventory would continue to affect its earnings performance. Here’s how analysts reacted.
Most financial planners advise young people to start saving early — and often — for retirement so they can take advantage of the so-called eighth wonder of the world – the power of compound interest.
And many advisers routinely urge those entering the workforce to contribute to their 401(k), especially when their employer is matching some portion of the amount the worker is contributing. The matching contribution is – essentially – free money.
New research, however, indicates that many young people should not save for retirement.
The reason has to do with something called the life-cycle model, which suggests that rational individuals allocate resources over their lifetimes with the aim of avoiding sharp changes in their standard of living.
Put another way, individuals, according to the model which dates back to economists Franco Modigliani, a Nobel Prize winner, and Richard Brumberg in the early 1950s, seek to smooth what economists call their consumption, or what normal people call their spending.
According to the model, young workers with low income dissave; middle-aged workers save a lot; and retirees spend down their savings.
Source: Bogleheads.org
The just-published research examines the life-cycle model even further by looking at high- and low-income workers, as well as whether young workers should be automatically enrolled in 401(k) plans. What the researchers found is this:
1. High-income workers tend to experience wage growth over their careers. And that’s the primary reason why they should wait to save. “For these workers, maintaining as steady a standard of living as possible therefore requires spending all income while young and only starting to save for retirement during middle age,” wrote Jason Scott, the managing director of J.S. Retirement Consulting; John Shoven, an economics professor at Stanford University; Sita Slavov, a public policy professor at George Mason University; and John Watson, a lecturer in management at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
2. Low-income workers, whose wage profiles tend to be flatter, receive high Social Security replacement rates, making optimal saving rates very low.
Middle-aged workers will need to save more later
In an interview, Scott discussed what some might view as a contrary-to-conventional wisdom approach to saving for retirement.
Why does one save for retirement? In essence, Scott said, it’s because you want to have the same standard of living when you’re not working as you did while you were working.
“The economic model would suggest ‘Hey, it’s not smart to live really high in the years when you’re working and really low when you’re retired,’” he said. “And so, you try to smooth that out. You want to save when you have relatively high income to support yourself when you have relatively low income. That’s really the core of the life-cycle model.”
But why would you spend all your income when you’re young and not save?
“In the life-cycle model, we are assuming you are getting the absolute most happiness you can out of income each year,” said Scott. “In other words, you are doing your best at age 25 with $25,000, and there is no way to live ‘cheaply’ and do better,” he said. “We also assume a given amount of money is more valuable to you when you are poor compared to when you are wealthy.” (Meaning $1,000 means a lot more at 25 than at 45.)
Scott also said that young workers might also consider securing a mortgage to buy a house rather than save for retirement. The reasons? You’re borrowing against future earnings to help that consumption, plus, you’re building equity that could be used to fund future consumption, he said.
Are young workers squandering the advantage of time?
Many institutions and advisers recommend just the opposite of what the life-cycle model suggests. They recommend that workers should have a certain amount of their salary salted away for retirement at certain ages in order to fund their desired standard of living in retirement. T. Rowe Price, for instance, suggests that a 30-year-old should have half their salary saved for retirement; a 40-year-old should have 1.5 times to 2 times their salary saved; a 50-year-old should have 3 times to 5.5 times their salary saved; and a 65-year-old should have 7 times to 13.5 times their salary saved.
Scott doesn’t disagree that workers should have savings benchmarks as a multiple of income. But he said a high-income worker who waits until middle age to save for retirement can easily reach the later-age benchmarks. “Savings for retirement probably is more in the zero range until 35 or so,” Scott said. “And then it is probably faster after that because you want to accumulate the same amount.”
Plus, he noted, the home equity a worker has could count toward the savings benchmark as well.
So, what about all the experts who say young people are best positioned to save because they have such a long timeline? Aren’t young workers just squandering that advantage?
Not necessarily, said Scott.
“First: saving earns interest, so you have more in the future,” he said. “However, in economics, we assume that people prefer money today compared to money in the future. Sometimes this is called a time discount. These effects offset each other, so it depends on the situation as to which is more significant. Given interest rates are so low, we generally think time discounts exceed interest rates.”
And second, Scott said, “early saving could have a benefit from the power of compounding, but the power of compounding is certainly irrelevant when after-inflation interest rates are 0% – as they have been for years.”
In essence, Scott said, the current environment makes a front-loaded lifetime spending profile optimal.
Low-income workers don’t need to save either
As for those with low income, say in the 25th percentile, Scott said it’s less about the “income ramp that really moves saving” and more that Social Security is extremely progressive; it replaces a large percentage of one’s preretirement income. “The natural need to save is not there when Social Security replaces 70, 80, 90% (of one’s preretirement income),” he said.
In essence, the more Social Security replaces of your preretirement income, the less you’ll need to save. The Social Security Administration and others are currently researching what percent of preretirement income Social Security replaces by income quintile, but previously published research from 2014 shows that Social Security represented nearly 84% of the lowest income quintile’s family income in retirement while it only represented about 16% of the highest income quintile’s family income in retirement.
Source: Social Security Administration
Is it worth auto-enrolling young workers in a 401(k) plan?
Scott and his co-authors also show that the “welfare costs” of automatically enrolling younger workers in defined-contribution plans—if they are passive savers who do not opt-out immediately—can be substantial, even with employer matching. “If saving is suboptimal, saving by default creates welfare costs; you’re doing the wrong thing for this population,” he said.
Welfare costs, according to Scott, are the costs of taking an action compared to the best possible action. “For example, suppose you wanted to go to restaurant A, but you were forced to go to restaurant B,” he said. “You would have suffered a welfare loss.”
In fact, Scott said young workers who are automatically enrolled into their 401(k) might consider when they’re in their early 30s taking the money out of their retirement plan, paying whatever penalty and taxes they might incur, and use the money to improve their standard of living.
“It’s optimal for them to take the money and use it to improve their spending,” said Scott. “It would be better if there weren’t penalties.”
Why is this so? “If I didn’t understand that I was being defaulted into a 401(k) plan, and I didn’t want to save, then I suffered a welfare loss,” said Scott. “We assume people figure out after five years that they were defaulted. At that point, they want their money out of the 401(k), and they are optimally willing to pay the 10% penalty to get their money out.”
Scott and his colleagues assessed welfare costs by figuring out how much they have to compensate young workers at that five-year point so that they are OK with having been inappropriately forced to save. Of course, the welfare costs would be lower if they didn’t have to pay the penalty to cash out their 401(k).
And what about workers who are automatically enrolled in a 401(k)? Are they not creating a savings habit?
Not necessarily. “The person who is confused and defaulted doesn’t really know it’s happening,” said Scott. “Maybe they’re getting a savings habit. They’re certainly living without the money.”
Scott also addressed the notion of giving up free money – the employer match — by not saving for retirement in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. For young workers, he said the match isn’t enough to overcome the cost of, say, five years of below-optimal spending. “If you think it’s for retirement, the match-improved benefit in retirement doesn’t overcome the cost of losing money when you’re poor,” said Scott. “I’m simply noting that if you are not consciously making the choice to save, it is hard to argue you are making a saving habit. You did figure out how to live on less, but in this case, you did not want to, nor do you intend to continue saving.”
The research raises questions and risks that must be addressed
There are plenty of questions the research raises. For instance, many experts say it’s a good idea to get in the habit of saving, to pay yourself first. Scott doesn’t disagree. For instance, a person might save to build an emergency fund or a down payment on a house.
As for the folks who might say you’re losing the power of compounding, Scott had this to say: “I think the power of compounding is challenged when real interest rates are 0%.” Of course, one could earn more than 0% real interest but that would mean taking on additional risk.
“The principle is about, ‘Should you save when you are relatively poor so you can have more when you are relatively rich?’ The life-cycle model says, ‘No way.’ This is independent of how you invest money between time periods,” Scott said. “For investing, our model does look at riskless interest rates. We argue that investment expected returns and risks are in equilibrium, so the core result is unlikely to change by introducing risky investments. However, it is definitely a limitation of our approach.”
Scott agreed there are risks to be acknowledged, as well. It’s possible, for instance, that Social Security, because of cuts to benefits, might not replace a low-income worker’s preretirement salary as much as it does now. And it’s possible that a worker might not experience high wage growth. What about people having to buy into the life-cycle model?
“You don’t have to buy into all of it,” said Scott. “You have to buy into this notion: You want to save when you’re relatively rich in order to spend when you’re relatively poor.”
So, isn’t this a big assumption to make about people’s career/pay trajectory?
“We consider relatively rich wage profiles and relatively poor wage profiles,” said Scott. “Both suggest young people should not save for retirement. I think the vast majority of median wage or higher workers experience a wage increase over their first 20 years of working. However, there is certainly risk in wages. I think you could rightly argue that young people might want to save some as a precaution against unexpected wage declines. However, this would not be saving for retirement.”
So, should you wait to save for retirement until you’re in your mid-30s? Well, if you subscribe to the life-cycle model, sure, why not? But if you subscribe to conventional wisdom, know that consumption might be lower in your younger years than it needs to be.
U.S. stocks dropped sharply Friday, with major indexes posting their lowest finishes since 2020 and logging a third straight quarterly decline as investors grew more fearful that aggressive interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve will drive the economy into a downturn in an attempt to quell inflation.
What’s happening
The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -1.71%
dropped 500.10 points, or 1.7%, to close at 28,725.51.
The S&P 500 SPX, -1.51%
dropped 54.85 points, or 1.5%, to end at 3,585.61.
The Nasdaq Composite COMP, -0.43%
shed 161.88 points, of 1.5%, finishing at 10,575.61.
The drop left the Dow and S&P 500 at their lowest since November 2020, while the Nasdaq posted its lowest close since July 29, 2020. The Dow dropped 8.8% in September, while the S&P 500 tumbled 9.3% and the Nasdaq lost 10.5%.
For the quarter, the Dow dropped 6.7%, the S&P 500 declined 5.3% and the Nasdaq gave up 4.1%.
What’s driving the market
In keeping with the historical pattern, U.S. stocks suffered during the month of September as an assertive Federal Reserve helped push Treasury yields and the dollar higher, which in turn undermined equity valuations.
Investors on Friday digested a reading from the personal consumption expenditure inflation index for August, which showed that core consumer prices climbed by 0.6% last month, more than Wall Street’s forecast of 0.5%. The core inflation measure excludes volatile food and energy prices.
“That means the Fed will remain hell-bent on killing inflation. And the best way to do that is to increase rates, kill the housing market, and get rental costs down. The PCE doesn’t have housing and rents as a big component as the CPI does, so the fact that it is rising is a warning sign,” said Louis Navellier, founder of Navellier & Associates, in emailed comments.
The reading largely confirmed similar data from the consumer-price index, another closely watched inflation barometer, which sent stocks lower earlier this month. Since that report was released just over two weeks ago, the S&P 500 has fallen more than 10%.
Helping to underscore this point, data out of the eurozone showed inflation accelerated at a record pace last month.
In other news, investors also heard from Fed Vice Chair Lael Brainard, who reiterated that the central bank would keep interest rates elevated to combat inflation, even if it harms the economy.
Since it will take time for high interest rates to bring inflation down, Brainard said the Fed is “committed to avoiding pulling back prematurely.”
Investors were also keeping an eye on megacap tech stocks. Apple Inc. AAPL fell 3% on Friday after leading markets lower a day earlier following a downgrade by Bank of America.
A final reading on the University of Michigan consumer-sentiment index for September showed consumers’ view of the economy improved somewhat during the month due to falling gas prices, even as their outlook remained broadly pessimistic.
Investors are now facing “what may be one of the most important earning seasons in a very long time, with a major rally in the cards if earnings don’t disappoint, and if the bears are right, lead to a further leg down if earnings disappoint and 4th quarter estimates are cut,” Navellier said.
Micron Technology MU, +0.18%
stock rose 0.2% after a report that Japan will grant it a $320 million subsidy to make advanced memory chips at its Hiroshima plant. That came a day after Micron posted quarterly earnings that included a forecast for a loss in the coming quarter and plans to scale back a build out of capacity.
— Steve Goldstein and Barbara Kollmeyer contributed to this article
