Update on Market Efficiency

Our last post on the curious behavior of the AAPL stock price was a little over three weeks ago, and since it is now (approximately) two months since Apple's last quarterly report, and since some "forward looking statements" were made in the last report, AND since in the intervening period Apple has

• Announced the new iPad
• Sold a bunch of them
• Announced a dividend (for the first time since 1995) and a stock buyback.

Curiously, the stock price (at this point the run-up has been sufficient to mandate using a log plot) has been increasing almost mechanically log-linearly:

For those who care about such things, the (annualized) Sharpe ratio of an investment in Apple over this period is very close to 9(!)

What to make of this? Apparently the process of gigantic mutual funds loading up on AAPL is continuing, and its speed depends in part on the decision-making speed of the appropriate committee, and partly by the reluctance of said committees to move the market to much, so that the buy orders to their brokers are spread over weeks (of course, we all know that the market is efficient, trends do not exist, and you can only hurt yourself by acting quickly. Why, you might pull something...)

A brief update on gold

There have been considerable conniptions, consternation, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over the price of gold in recent times. Here is a quick look at reality. Below is the graph of the natural logarithm of the price of gold (measured by its proxy GLD) from its inceptions in 2004 to present day:

You will note that the graph hugs its trend line very closely, and has not really deviated much from its appointed rounds. You do see a wiggle at the very end, but a quick check will reveal that over the entire history, GLD has been gaining 7.2 basis points a day on average, with standard deviation of 13.5 basis points a day (so Sharpe ratio of 0.85), while over the last twelve months, the average return has been 6.8 basis points a day, with standard deviation of 13.4 basis points, for Sharpe ratio of 0.81, so yes, the risk adjusted returns have dropped, but not hugely. Notice also that the graph (at least in the date range shown) shows no indications of a bubble (you can see a mini-bubble in early 2008, followed by the mini-crash in late 2008 -- presumably the mini-bubble was caused by the contemporaneous, and much more substantial,  oil price spike, while the crash was caused by the general panic of the crash of 2008, but not again that the crash was much more mild than the crash in the oil prices (factor of six, peak to trough), and the stock market (close to a factor of two).

Efficient markets?

On January 24 2012, Apple came out with its quarterly data, which completely obliterated analysts projections. AAPL was trading at a P/E multiple of around 12 at the time (already quite low for a company with Apple's growth). Following the earnings report, we saw the following price movement (presumably not over, unless Apple really screws up the iPad 3 badly):

In other words, after a relatively modest 4% jump on the day following the earnings announcement, the stock has been going up linearly. No significant news has come out since the earnings report (there have been reports of the coming iPad 3 for several months, and since, in the post-Steve Jobs era, Apple secrecy is not what it used to be, the rumors have been detailed and consistent. Much has been said of the considerable Apple cash hoard, but that, again, is not news. The question is: since all the relevant information has been available for over a month, why such a slow reaction time, which flies in the face of the efficient markets hypothesis. The only explanation I can come up with is that Apple is large enough that to significantly move the price, very large pension funds and mutual funds have to decide to buy, and whatever these guys are, quick on the uptake is not it. The morals of the story seem to be: not all opportunity lies in $10 cap micro stocks, and those of us with money in (for example) TIAA-CREF should be very sad.

A non-arbed-out trading idea

It is an empirical (but not fully backtested) observation that every time our  fearless leader speaks the market tanks. Some have doubted this on the grounds that correlation does not mean causality, but the first (and quite considerable) example of this phenomenon happened on the occasion of his inauguration, where, as the great man spoke the S&P 500 plunged by around 5% (from 840 to 805), this setting the tone for the rest of his term (I almost said "hopefully his only term", but the alternatives look pretty bleak also).

Marc Faber: Gold is Dirt cheap.

Faber is not a stupid guy.

Your friend igor@rivinfinancial.com has shared a link with you. Marc Faber: Gold is "Dirt Cheap" — Price Could Reach $10,000 per Ounce | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/marc-faber-gold-dirt-cheap-price-could-reach-130058708.html Eleven years into a gold bull market, Marc Faber publisher of the Gloom Boom and Doom report still doesn't think gold is in a bubble. Joining us via Skype from in Chiang Mai, Thailand Thursday, Faber told the Daily Ticker's Aaron Task there are fundamental reasons why gold, already nearly 30% higher for they year, [...] Read the full story

Very well put

I
David Stockman: Rick Perry Is Right, the Fed Is “Totally Wrong” | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/david-stockman-rick-perry-fed-totally-wrong-151724790.html
============================================================
Yahoo! Finance http://finance.yahoo.com/

The continuing mystery of gold

Actually, as previous posts seem to indicate, there is no great mystery to gold: the executive summary is that it is not so much that gold is going up as that the dollar is going down. What is, however, mysterious, is that the gold miners are not doing very well. Indeed, this year, gold prices (as measured by GLD) have gone up some 8%, which is (as of today, June 8 2011) considerably better than any of the stock indices. Gold miners, however, are performing truly abysmally: the chart below shows the performance of gold vs S&P 500, vs NEM --  Newmont Mining (NEM), which is down almost twenty percent year to date. A picture is worth a thousand words:

 Newmont's friends and competitors which constitute the GDX ETF are doing abut the same. Now, if gold prices were very high compared to the cost of extraction, then gold miners should be doing very well. If, s previously suggested, we have no gold bubble, then the cost of extracting gold out of the ground should be growing roughly as the price of the metal itself, and if the margins were roughly constant in percentage terms, the prices of mining stocks should be growing roughly as fast  as the price of gold. It has been suggested that the wear and tear on the mines is adversely affecting the price of gold miners. Let's test this theory, and look at the Price/Earnings ratio of long-suffering NEM versus that of the S&P.

The sharp-eyed reader will see that until the end of 2009, gold miners were the toast of the town, but since the beginning of 2010, they suddenly became the black sheep of the investment community, and the current P/E of Newmont (around 11) is only slightly higher than that of the S&P 500 at the nadir of the stock market collapse (3/9/2009, when it was a little over 10). Indeed, while NEM's share price (adjusted for dividends) has risen by 25% over the last five years, its P/E ratio has gone from around 70(!) to the current 11.

The only at all plausible explanation  for this strangeness I have seen is that some hedge funds use gold mining stocks to hedge their gold positions. Well, actually, this does not really make sense to me -- the obvious trade at this point is go long miners (perhaps hedging with GLD), but nothing else does either, since it seems that GDX and friends appear undervalued by some 30% (and there have been massive selling in the last couple of days).

NOTE: Samsara is long gold mining stocks, and has been for quite a while (somewhat to its chagrin).