Divestor

The second quarter of 2010 ended today. I noticed there was a lot of trading going on, especially in less-than-liquid issues that tended to trade down. I am guessing there were some liquidations that were part of some window dressing and/or automatic buying/selling for indexing purposes.

In terms of the broader markets, the S&P 500 was down 12.2% for the quarter. The TSX composite was down 6.2%. Spot oil was down 10.0%.

Perhaps the most important broad market financial measure was the 10-year US treasury bond, down from 3.85% at the beginning of the quarter to 2.95% – the market has made a significant deflationary bet over the past three months. The Canadian 10-year bond was down from 3.56% to 3.09% (June 29th data). This decrease in long term interest rates has very interesting implications – banks are parking cash in bonds rather than lending it out.

As readers of any of my sites know, I was a very big supporter of the Harper government’s decision in late 2007 to reduce the federal corporate income tax to 15% in 2012; it is currently 18% in 2010; and will be 16.5% in 2011. It was 21% from 2008 and 22.12% in 2007.

First, you had Tim Hortons moving its corporate headquarters back to Canada, where they will realize a substantial cost savings in taxes vs. their US operation.

Today, you have Biovail and Valeant merging together (note that long-time investors would know Valeant formerly as ICN Pharmaceuticals), but the key paragraph is the following:

Following completion of the merger, the new Valeant will be headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario and will remain a Canadian domiciled corporation, listed on both the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges. In addition, the combined company will retain Biovail’s existing principal operating subsidiary in Barbados, which will continue to own, manage, control and develop intellectual property for the combined company. The location of the combined company’s U.S. headquarters will be determined after the close of the transaction.

This is purely for tax reasons. In Valeant’s California headquarters, they are subject to corporate income taxes of approximately 40% – 35% federal and about 8% state (which is deductible from federal taxes).

In Ontario, the current tax rate is 18% federal and 14% provincial; the provincial component will be reduced to 12% on July 1, 2010, for a combined rate of 31% in 2010. In mid-2011 and mid-2012, Ontario’s provincial rate goes down half a percent, and in mid-2013 it goes down to 10%. So the company will face the following effective corporate tax rates:

Calendar year 2010: 31%
Calendar year 2011: 28.25%
Calendar year 2012: 26.25%
Calendar year 2013: 25.5%
Calendar year 2014 and beyond: 25.0%

Corporations moving to British Columbia currently face a 10.5% provincial corporate tax rate, which will be reduced to 10% in 2011.

For Valeant, they reported $217 million in pre-tax income in the past 12 months. A 15% tax cut on this amount amounts to a yearly savings of about $33 million or nearly 40 cents a share. Also, any synergy benefits in the merger would also realize a 75% after-tax savings, as opposed to 60% if they had remained in California.

It is this huge 15% tax advantage that will cause more businesses to escape the USA and get into Canada. The US is going to be forced to cut corporate tax rates, otherwise they will continue to see investment leak out of the country like a thin helium balloon. As long as Canada doesn’t reverse this decision (which the opposition Liberal party has attacked the Conservatives on this very issue of corporate tax cuts) we will continue to be the beneficiaries of what is a very sound corporate taxation policy.

Article on the Financial Times – “How to best avoid performance addiction” which you might have to type into Google and click through there in order to get the full article. It describes how performance is the only barometer that most (retail) investors allocate capital, so when fund managers get money, they usually are already in quite “hot” sectors due to the prior years’ outperformance. A quotation is the following:

Most asset managers exhibit “enabling behaviours” that reinforce investors’ performance addiction by selling investment products on the basis of past – particularly short-term – performance. Although we all repeat the mantra that “past performance does not guarantee future success”, we still pay too much attention to performance.

…

Imagine a world in which every adviser and asset manager had to discuss three categories of investments with their clients: out-of-favour strategies worthy of consideration; high-performing strategies that continue to have legs; and “hot” performers that have had their run, from which investors should scale back their investments. It certainly would lead to rather different discussions than what typically occurs today.

Unfortunately I disagree with the conclusion. In the investment world, risk-adjusted future performance is everything. Risk-adjusted past performance is the only measurement tool. Note I mentioned the phrase “risk-adjusted” – a fund could have achieved a 1-billion-percent increase of capital by winning a $5 bet on the Lotto MAX (into $50 million) which would be very good fund performance, but the risk taken to get that performance was ridiculously stupid.

Most retail investors know nothing about performing this risk calculation when glossing through various promotional literature of mutual funds.

From an individual perspective, you should absolutely crave inefficient capital allocation (e.g. what we are likely seeing in the Vancouver Real Estate market). It causes less capital to chase other assets (which presumably will exhibit relative undervaluation) which you can snap up for cheaper prices. From a macroeconomic perspective, however, it is very unhealthy for economies to have significant inefficiencies, so when the focus of the speculative boom busts, you usually have to content with economic fallout (e.g. late 19th century/early 20th century railroad companies, mid 20th century automakers, the internet stock bubble, 2008 US real estate market etc.).

The US held a 2-year treasury bond auction today and some $42 billion was awarded at a yield to maturity of 0.769%.

In Canada, the 2-year government note is trading at 1.69%.

I can’t think of a single rational reason why a retail investor (that has a lot less than $42 billion in the bank account) would want to purchase these types of securities when there are relatively risk-free alternatives (such as “near guarantee” GICs and corporate bonds of issuers that would only default in the event of an economic apocalypse).

The European Union Bank is effectively going “all-in” by pledging $1 trillion in collateral to shore up the economies in the Eurozone.

What people should be fully aware of is that while this might delay the financial issues concerning the countries in the Eurozone, this is not going to solve the underlying problems – too many entitlements promised to people and not enough money to pay the corresponding liabilities. The only solutions are to reduce the entitlements (which is difficult to achieve politically) or raise revenues.

Clearly by stalling for time, they are hoping something might happen that would alleviate themselves of the fiscal mess they are in, but by stalling any action that would clean up the mess, it will just make it worse in the future when the proverbial excrement hits the fan.

It is my market opinion that we have not seen the end of this by any means. How to play this profitably is difficult – increasing cash allocation and playing the risk aversion card seems to be wise until such a time it becomes evident that the markets have discounted sufficient risk to account for the soverign debt mess that is looming.

The United States is not immune to this, but economists do know that countries such as the United Kingdom, other European countries and Japan are more likely to face these big macroeconomic/demographic issues before the USA will.

Countries like Canada, relatively speaking, are in decent shape. While old age security payments and guaranteed income supplements will increase as the baby boomer generation retires, entitlement payments are relatively low and can be managed. Our pension plan (CPP) is solvent and funded by real assets generating real returns (although how those assets will perform in a global debt default remains to be seen). The big liability, accrued healthcare spending, is the big political hot potato. The Canadian economy seems poised to take advantage of one major trend, mainly that consumption of energy will continue to increase – our oil industry is going to boom assuming there is no massive deflation of debt and international trade.

I still have no idea whether the deflationary or inflationary theory will win out.

The impact of the European Union’s credit crunch in their less than financially solvent countries is playing out before our eyes. Since the market has had the ability to see this event happening far in advance, I do not believe the impact will be nearly as severe as the US credit crunch. In addition, the US/Canadian direct exposure to Greek debt is limited, but indirect exposure (via the European banks, who have the real exposure) may be significant.

The obvious impact, now that this has clearly hit the media, is the following:

1. Whenever there is a financial crisis, the rush to safety always goes into US dollars and US treasury bonds. 30-year yields are down from 4.8% to 4.4% in April. Canadian bonds have seen some inflow, but not nearly as much as the USA.

2. US currency, relative to the Euro is signifciantly higher, but this has been being priced into the market over the past few months. The Canadian dollar has been relatively unchanged against the US currency.

3. Stocks will take their tumbles as people rush for liquidity and reduce risk.

4. Commodities will be lower due to less implied demand.

The EU bailout will, at most, be a band-aid for the Greek government, but does not address the underlying problem in any way, mainly that the list of entitlements that the Greek government has promised its people it cannot pay for. This should be a word of caution for those that think the government can continue to have most of its people on the dole without consequence – if there is no political will to reform entitlement programs, then the financial market will make the decision for you. In the case of Greece, it has clearly come to this point.

Greece, by joining the Euro, has removed one important tool that could have otherwise allowed it to recover – currency devaluation. Without a devaluation option, they have to make politically much more difficult choices.

In the grand scheme, Canada is relatively placed better than most European countries, as long as we don’t keep giving out entitlements thinking they are free.

In terms of future decisions, it would imply that interest rates would be kept lower with an expanded European crisis than without, so this could be a boost to fixed income securities.

I don’t think this will transform into a market meltdown like what happened in 2008, although again, I could be wrong. If the markets do continue to plunge, this is exactly what you have cash reserves for – to snap up underpriced bargains that have gotten to that price level because of other people forced to liquidate.