Menu
Weekly Issue: While Most Eyes Are on the Fed, We Look at a Farfetch(ed) Idea

Weekly Issue: While Most Eyes Are on the Fed, We Look at a Farfetch(ed) Idea

Key points inside this issue

  • The Fed Takes Center Stage Once Again
  • Farfetch Limited (FTCH) – A fashionable Living the Life Thematic Leader
  • Digital Lifestyle – The August Retail Sales confirms the adoption continues

 

Economics & Expectations

The Fed Takes Center Stage Once Again

As we saw last week, the primary drivers of the stock market continue to be developments on the U.S.-China trade front and the next steps in monetary policy. As the European Central Bank stepped up its monetary policy loosening, it left some to wonder how much dry powder it had remaining should the global economy slow further and tip into a recession. Amid those concerns, along with some discrepancy among reports that President Trump would acquiesce to a two-step trade deal with China, stocks finished last week with a whimper after rebounding Wednesday and Thursday.

We continue to see intellectual property and national security as key tenets in negotiating a trade deal with China. We will watch as the lead up to October’s next round of trade negotiations unfolds. Given the Fed’s next two-day monetary policy meeting that begins on Tuesday and culminates with the Fed’s announcement and subsequent press conference, barring any new U.S.-China trade developments before then, it’s safe to say what the Fed says will be a key driver of the stock market this week.

Leading up to that next Fed press conference, we will get the August data for Industrial Production and Housing Starts as well as the September Empire State Manufacturing Index. Paired with Friday’s August Retail Sales report and last Thursday’s August CPI report, that will be some of the last data the Fed factors into its policy decision.

Per the CME Group’s FedWatch tool, the market sees an 82% probability for the Fed to cut interest rates by 25 basis points this week with possibly one more rate cut to be had before we exit 2019. Normally speaking, parsing the Fed’s words and Fe Chair Powell’s presser commentary are key to getting inside the central bank’s “head,” and this will be especially important this time around. One of our concerns has been the difference between the economic data and the expectations it is yielding in the stock market. Should the Fed manage to catch the market off guard, odds are it will give the market a touch of agita.

On the earnings front

there are five reports that we’ll be paying close attention to this week. They are Adobe Systems (ADBE), Chewy (CHWY), FedEx (FDX), General Mills (GIS) and Darden Restaurants (DRI). With Adobe, we’ll be examining the rate of growth tied to cloud, an aspect of our Disruptive Innovators investing theme. With Darden we’ll look to see if the performance at its full-service restaurants matches up with the consumer trade-down data being reported by the National Restaurant Association. That data has powered shares of Cleaner Living Thematic Leader and Cleaner Living Index resident Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG) higher of late, bringing the year to date return to 82% vs. 20% for the S&P 500. Chewy is a Digital Lifestyle company that is focused on the pet market serving up food, toys, medications and other pet products. Fedex will not only offer some confirmation on the digital shopping aspect of our Digital Lifestyle investing theme it will also shed some light on the global economy as well.

 

Farfetch Limited – A fashionable Living the Life Thematic Leader

In last week’s issue, I mentioned that I was collecting my thoughts on Farfetch Limited (FTCH), a company that sits at the intersection of the luxury goods market and digital commerce. Said thematically, Farfetch is a company that reflects our Living the Life investment theme, while also benefitting from tailwinds of our Digital Lifestyle theme. Even though the company went public last year, it’s not a household name even though it operates a global luxury digital marketplace. As the shares have fallen over the last several weeks, I’ve had my eyes on them and now is the time to dip our toes in the water by adding FTCH as a Thematic Leader.

 

 

Farfetch Provides Digital Shopping to the Exploding Global Luxury Market

Farfetch is a play on the global $100 billion online luxury market with access to over 3,200 different brands across more than 1,100 brand boutique partners across its platform. With both high-end and every-day consumers continuing to shift their shopping to online and mobile platforms, we see Farfetch attacking a growing market that also has the combined benefit of appealing to the aspirational shopper and being relatively inelastic compared to mainstream apparel.

Part of what is fueling the global demand for luxury and aspirational goods is the rising disposable income of consumers in Asia, particularly China. According to Hurun’s report, The Chinese Luxury Traveler, enthusiasm for overseas travel shows no signs of abating, with the proportion of time spent on overseas tourism among luxury travelers increasing 5% to become 70% of the total. Cosmetics, (45%), local specialties (43%), luggage (39%), clothing and accessories (37%) and jewelry (34%) remain the most sought — after items among luxury travelers. High domestic import duties and concerns about fake products contribute to the popularity of shopping abroad.

It should come as little surprise then that roughly 31% of FarFetch’s 2018 revenue was derived from Asia-Pacific with the balance split between Europe, Middle East & Africa (40%) and the Americas (29%). At the end of the June 2019 quarter, the company had 1.77 million active customers, up from 1.35 million exiting 2018 and 0.9 million in 2017. As the number of active users has grown so too has Farfetch’s revenue, which hit $718 million over the 12 months ending June 2019 compared to $602 million in all of 2018 and $386 million in 2017.

Farfetch primarily monetizes its platform by serving as a commercial intermediary between sellers and end consumers and earns a commission for this service. That revenue stream also includes fees charged to sellers for other activities, such as packaging, credit-card processing, and other transaction processing activities. That business accounts for 80%-85% of Farfetch’s overall revenue with the balance derived from Platform Fulfillment Revenue and to a small extent In-Store Revenue.

New Acquisition Transformed Farfetch’s Revenue Mix 

In August, Farfetch announced the acquisition of New Guards Group, the Milan-based parent company of Off-White, Heron Preston and Palm Angels, in a deal valued at $675 million. New Guards will serve as the basis for a new business segment at Farfetch, one that it has named Brand Platform. Brand Platform will allow Farfetch to leverage New Guards’ design and product capabilities to expand the reach of its brands as well as develop new brands that span the Farfetch platform. For the 12-month period ending April 2019, the New Guards portfolio delivered revenue of $345 million, with profits before tax of $95 million. By comparison, Farfetch posted $654 million in revenue and an operating loss of $183 million over that time frame.

Clearly, another part of the thought behind acquiring New Guards and building the Brand Platform business is to improve the company’s margin and profit profile. And on the housekeeping front, the $675 million paid for New Guards will be equally split between cash and stock. Following its IPO last year, Farfetch ended the June quarter with roughly $1 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet.

In many ways what we have here is a baby Amazon (AMZN) that is focused on luxury goods. Ah, the evolution of digital shopping! And while there are a number of publicly traded companies tied to digital shopping, there are few that focus solely on luxury goods.

Why Now is the Time to Add FTCH Shares

We are heading into the company’s seasonally strongest time of year, the holiday shopping season, and over the last few years, the December quarter has accounted for almost 35% of Farfetch’s annual sales. With the company’s active user base continuing to grow by leaps and bounds, that historical pattern is likely to repeat itself. Current consensus expectations have Farfetch hitting $964 million in revenue for all of 2019 and then $1.4 billion in 2020.

At the current share price, FTCH shares are trading at 1.6x expected 2020 sales on an enterprise value-to-sales basis. The consensus price target among the 10 Wall Street analysts that cover the stock is $22, which equates to an EV/2020 sales multiple of near 3.5x when adjusting for the pending New Guards acquisition. As we move through this valuation exercise, we have to factor into our thinking that Farfetch is not expected to become EBITDA positive until 2021. In our view, that warrants a bit of haircut on the multiple side and utilizing an EV/2020 sale multiple of 2.5x derives our $16 price target.

  • Despite that multiple, there is roughly 60% potential upside to that target vs. downside to the 52-week low of $8.82.
  • We are adding FTCH shares to the Thematic Leaders for our Living the Life investing theme.
  • A $16 price target is being set and we will wait to put any sort of stop-loss floor in place.

 

Digital Lifestyle – The August Retail Sales confirms the adoption continues

One of last week’s key economic reports was the August Retail Sales report due in part to the simple fact the consumer directly or indirectly accounts for two-thirds of the domestic economy. Moreover, with the manufacturing and industrial facing data – both economic and other third-party kinds, such as truck tonnage, railcar loadings and the like – softening in the June quarter, that quarter’s positive GDP print hinged entirely on the consumer. With domestic manufacturing and industrial data weakening further in July and August, the looming question being asked by many an investor is whether the consumer can keep the economy chugging along?

In recent months, I’ve voiced growing concerns over the spending health of the consumer as more data suggests a strengthening tailwind for our Middle-Class Squeeze investing theme. Some of that includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s latest Household Debt and Credit Report, consumer household debt balances have been on the rise for five years and quarterly increases continue on a consecutive basis, bringing the second quarter 2019 total to $192 billion. Also a growing number of banks are warning over rising credit card delinquencies even as the Federal Reserve’s July Consumer Credit data showed revolving credit expanded at its fastest pace since November 2017.

Getting back to the August Retail Sale report, the headline print was a tad better than expected, however once we removed auto sales, retail sales for the month were flat. That’s on a sequential basis, but when viewed on a year over year one, retail sales excluding autos rose 3.5% year over year. That brought the year over year comparison for the three-months ending with August to up 3.4% and 1.5% stronger than the three months ending in May on the same basis.

Again, perspective can be illuminating when looking at the data, but what really shined during the month of August was digital shopping, which rose 16.0% year over year. That continued strength following the expected July surge in digital shopping due to Amazon Prime Day and all the others that looked to cash in on it led year over year digital shopping sales to rise 15.0% for the three months ending in August.

Without question, this aspect of our Digital Lifestyle investing theme continues to take consumer wallet share, primarily at the expense of brick & mortar retailers, especially department stores, which saw their August retail sales fall 5.4%. That continues the pain felt by department stores and helps explain why more than 7,000 brick & mortar locations have shuttered their doors thus far in 2019. Odds are there is more of that to come as consumers continue to shift their dollar purchase volume to online and mobile shopping as Walmart (WMT), Target (TGT) and others look to compete with Amazon Prime’s one day delivery.

  • For all the reasons discussed above, Amazon remains our Thematic King as we head into the seasonally strong holiday shopping season. 

 

Banks & the Fed – Bail 'em Out then Beat 'em Up

While shoppers were watching their pennies this holiday season, I was grinching over the relationship between the Fed and the big banks as reminiscent of the abusive relationship between Ike and Tina Turner – bail them out then beat them up with an onslaught of massive fines.  According to a global banking study by the Boston Consulting Group, legal claims against the world’s leading banks have reached $178 billion since the financial crisis, with heavy fines now seen as a cost of doing business, a cost ultimately born by shareholders with no banking employees or executives facing charges for wrong-doing.

All these fines do little to deter wrong-doing in the future while taking money out of the hands of those saving for retirement and give it to the government to spend with zero accountability.


 

100 Years of the Federal Reserve

100 Years of the Federal Reserve

There was a time when no one, outside perhaps the most esoteric economic geek circles, could name the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Those days are now long gone as the Fed has taken a much more active role in the economy and the various Fed Presidents and Chairman have evolved into media cult figures, perhaps less riveting than the latest Kardashian marriage collapse, but financially far more provocative.

 

The Fed’s current focus is clearly helping Uncle Sam reflate out of the government’s enormous mountain of debt. The chart on the next page shows the mountain of debt that has been created by impressive levels of spending from both sides of the aisle for a truly bi-partisan mess. The deficit is now almost three times what it was seven years ago, while debt service costs are at about the same level, thanks to Fed sponsored suppression of interest rates. The Fed effectively has complete control of the market for longer-dated Treasuries, with its holdings of bonds with a maturity greater than 10 years increasing by $154 billion through June of this year, (latest data available from the Fed) to a total of over $500 billion. Meanwhile the total outstanding level of such debt, privately held interest-bearing, grew a measly $9.6 billion for a total of $809 billion.


For those of you who enjoy a monetary policy geek-fest, the following summary of comments from the various speakers at the Cato Institute’s Monetary Policy Conference on November 14th, including current Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser may be of great interest. I’ll do my best to keep it lively.

 

Charles Plosser opened the conference with a discussion of how many of the both implicit and explicit limits on central banks around the world have been challenged over the past few decades and most dramatically since the financial crisis. He believes the Fed entered into the realm of fiscal policy when it began purchasing non-Treasury securities such as mortgage-backed securities and referenced Milton Friedman’s warning in 1967 that, “We are in danger of assigning to Monetary Policy a greater task than it can accomplish.” Over the past 40 years, it is clear that we have failed to heed Friedman’s warning, with the Fed doing a poor job of aligning expectations with what it is actually capable of accomplishing. Plosser warned that increasing the scope of the Fed’s mandate opens the door for highly discretionary policies, acknowledging that a rules-based approach is unattractive for the majority of policy makers as it ties their hands.,Discretion is the antithesis of commitment, something most politicians loathe. If the Fed gave itself less discretion, it would be held more accountable. He pointed out that the current climate of guess-my-mood communication on the Fed’s part leads investors to make unwise gambles, as they try to read the mysterious tea leaves of Fed speak, such as the recent market tumult over taper talk.

 

Jerry Jordan, the former President of the Cleveland Federal Reserve expanded on Plosser’s comments, pointing out that the existence of a Central Bank with discretionary power essentially guarantees the emergence of moral hazard with the resulting power to grant permission and regulate with discretion, opening the door to crony capitalism. To large banks, their PACs, (Political Action Committees) are often more impactful on their bottom line than their own management. (Shocker, businesses as well as individuals respond to incentives!) He referenced the Fed’s recent report on the impact of quantitative easing on the economy stating that if there is any relationship between economic growth and quantitative easing, it is a remarkably well kept secret, instigating a round of chuckles from the audience. He pointed out that most economists understand that monetary policy cannot correct the mistakes of the rest of government, even though the Fed is currently doing its best to defy that assessment. He argued that central bank independence is a myth, at least during a financial crisis, because once a central bank takes its first steps to support the economy, there is no way out that does not involve collateral damage. That, by definition, prompts pressure from bureaucrats. He believes that exiting the current zero interest rate regime will be exceedingly complex and it will be impossible to escape without considerable financial market volatility. He seconded Plosser’s assessment of the Fed’s move into fiscal policy, asserting that traditional views of monetary policy and its impact are no longer useful as monetary policy has become fiscal policy. This move into fiscal policy has served to increase market volatility as no one can say with certainty, which entities will receive support during a crisis and for how long. Once again, discretion comes at a price.

 

Cato President and CEO John Allison, (former CEO of BB&T Corp, a U.S bank with over $180 billion in assets) discussed the impact he saw of government actions on his former bank. He pointed out that the Patriot Act and the federal privacy policy are in conflict with each other, leading to discretionary enforcement and application by regulators, which opens the door for corruption. He observed one of the great fallacies of current conventional wisdom is that there was financial deregulation under President George W. Bush which led to the crisis. Instead, Allison stated that there was actually a net increase in regulation if you look at the quantity and complexity of the regulations before and after his term. He believes that regulators greatly exacerbated the panic that hit the markets during the financial crisis by effectively suspending the rule of law and greatly increasing their level of discretion. No one had confidence in just what were the rules of the game, nor was there any clarity on who would be bailed out, who wouldn’t, and at what cost and for how long.

 

Kevin Dowd, Professor of Finance and Economics, Durham University, reinforced John Allison’s assertions, pointing out that the original Federal Reserve Act is about 32 pages long. The Glass-Steagall Act is under 40 pages long. The Volker Rule is just under 550 pages. Dodd-Frank, so far, is nearly 850 pages with most expecting it to total around 20,000 pages or more when all the discretionary bits are worked out. Notice a trend in the timeline here? The more complex the regulations, the more costly it is to enforce them, and to comply with them, creating a bias towards ever larger financial institutions, and increasing the opportunity for corruption.

 

For those of you who’d like a bit more, aside from suggesting you look into therapy as my family reiterates every holiday, I recommend going to this site to watch clips of some of the presentations. Despite the gloomy potential, there were frequent rounds of boisterous laughter, albeit the geeky economist style which I enjoy more than I ought to admit.

Interest Rates and National Debt

Interest Rates and National Debt

Interest-Rates-and-National-DebtThe Federal Reserve has been under considerable pressure to provide details for just how it will control all the excess liquidity that it has created through quantitative easing. The Fed’s balance sheet, which can roughly be thought of as a proxy for the potential money supply, is almost 2.4 times the size it was in 2007. Last month I discussed how excess bank reserves have skyrocketed to nearly $1.7 trillion after having historically averaged near zero since the inception of the Federal Reserve. The Fed has argued that it will be able to slowly raise interest rates and carefully reign in those excess funds to prevent rampant inflation. This is something that has never in history been accomplished, so there is no clear roadmap for how to do this successfully, but for argument’s sake, let’s assume that the Fed is indeed capable. The question then becomes, “How will rising interest rates affect the economy and investing?” One of the largest impacts of rising interest rates will be on the financials of the federal government. The chart above shows the U.S. National Debt from 1950 to 2012 (left hand axis) and the annual deficit/surplus (right hand axis). The current national debt is over $16 trillion. Over the past 5 years, the annual deficit has averaged $1.4 trillion. The national debt as a percent of GDP is almost double what it was in 2007. The annual deficit is 9 times the size it was in 2007. The recent sequester cuts sent D.C. into apoplectic fits with dire warnings of impending doom, however those “cuts”, according to the Congressional Budget Office, represented a decrease in the amount of spending increase that is less than the total increase, which means there will still be an increase in net spending after the sequester, (see Congressional Budget Office “Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2013” published March 2013). Given the emotional hoopla and doomsday rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that the current level of deficit spending is unlikely to decrease significantly anytime soon.

The current 10 year Treasury interest rate is about 1.8%. It reached its lowest level in July 2012 at 1.53% and the highest rate was 15.32% in September 1981 when Paul Volker put the kibosh on inflation. The historical average rate has been about 4.6%. The current annual interest payment on the debt is just over $220 billion. If interest rates were to rise to only the historical average of 4.6%, that would be an increase of 2.8%, which would be an increase of nearly $110 billion, if we assume for simplicity that all the new issuance is a 10 year terms. (The reality is that some would be shorter term, some would be longer, and this is just meant to give an approximation to illustrate the magnitude of the impact.) That means interest expense on the debt would increase a whopping 50% in the next year. If the deficit spending continued at about the same rate for the next 6 years, annual debt interest payments would become the government’s costliest expense by 2020. For every year that we continue to deficit spend, increasing the national debt, the magnitude of the impact of rising interest rates increases.

That puts the Federal Reserve into quite a pickle if the economy does in fact gets some legs and inflation ignites. Don’t raise rates and face punishing inflation. Raise rates and D.C. is going to be put under even more pressure to reduce spending. No wonder Chairman Ben Bernanke has been giving subtle indications that he isn’t keen on yet another term as Chairman!

Federal Reserve and National Debt

It took the federal government around 200 years to accumulate a trillion dollars in debt. Within the following decade it tripled that number, then doubled it again in just twelve years, and doubled it again in another 8 years. Overall the national debt has increased sixteen-fold in just 30 years. Incidentally, this period coincides with the complete delinking of the U.S. currency to the gold standard.

So how are we managing all this debt? In 2013 the Federal Reserve will buy approximately 90% of the country’s issuance of Treasuries and mortgage bonds! That’s one way to explain how a nation facing such a growing mountain of debt, a slowing to stalling economy, and a paralyzed political process is able to maintain such incredibly low interest rates. Treasuries have long been used as the standard for the risk-free rate. With only 10%
of the issuance to float freely in the market, the Fed is able to generate considerable demand for this “risk-free” asset class, driving prices up, which means driving interest rates down.

The massive distortions from the various Quantitative Easing programs have damaged the market mechanisms for understanding the true price of risk, which gives markets an understanding of the appropriate cost of capital. A market that no longer can obtain this information has a big problem, because mispricing of risk leads to misallocation of capital.

The proverbial saying goes that markets love to climb a wall of worry. We’ve seen corporate earnings and revenue growth slow sharply through the past year, with corporate guidance for future performance continuing to be rather grim, yet equities have had quite a run. This is due to expanding P/E multiples as we discussed in last month’s newsletter. This expansion is 85% correlated to the Fed’s ongoing balance sheet expansion, as it is now adding about $85 billion of relatively secure fixed income securities to its $3 trillion portfolio on a monthly basis. Such an enormous level of buying in the markets, leaving only 10% of new issuance available for purchase, is forcing investors into other assets, pushing up prices.

How is this level of Fed activity going to end? David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff described the situation well by saying,

“I am concerned over the unintended consequences of these experimental policy measures that have no precedence, but perhaps these consequences lie too far ahead in time from a ‘tactical’ sense, but we should be aware of them. The last cycle was built on artificial prosperity propelled by financial creativity on Wall Street and this cycle is being built on an abnormal era of central bank market manipulation.” January 17th, 2013.

Bottom Line: When one looks over the past 12 years of active Federal Reserve monetary policy in which we experienced repeated bubbles followed by painful pops, why does anyone believe this time will be different? Particularly when this time we experienced monetary activism on an unprecedented scale: we are truly in uncharted waters.

Bernanke is watching you

On September 27th, Freedom Fighters Chris Cotter, Nancy Skinner, and Lenore Hawkins discussed the Fed’s plans to monitor the Internet, and why Coca-Cola is choosing China.

Dollar continues its decline

Dollar continues its decline

Today saw the dollar continue to drop, slipping to below 74 before closing at 74.27, getting closer and closer to the March 2008 low. In turn, commodities are making new highs with gold closing above $1,500 and silver above $46. The cyclically sensitive currencies like the Aussie dollar and the Canadian loonie are strengthening as well against the dollar. Even the Euro, with all its debt challenges is stomping on the greenback, apparently unaffected by all the talk of debt restructuring. Emerging market currencies continue to firm against the dollar and as one would expect, stocks rise against our falling currency.

We expect that the Fed will work out a way to extend its program of quantitative easing, possibly using funds from the maturing mortgages on its books. If this indeed does occur, the push into risk assets will most likely intensify and the trade deficit will decline.

What does Fiscal or Monetary Policy mean?

What does Fiscal or Monetary Policy mean?

We hear a lot of talk about which government policies can help get the economy back on its feet. I thought I’d provide a quick cheat sheet on just what these various terms actually mean.

This chart shows the complete list of tools that the federal government has to affect the economy.  There are two main types of policy, monetary and fiscal.  When you hear monetary policy think Federal Reserve.  When you hear fiscal policy, think IRS and federal spending.

The Federal Reserve can alter two things to affect the economy, the Fed Funds rate and the Money Supply.

Interest Rates:  The Federal Funds target rate is the interest rate at which private depository institutions, (mostly banks) lend the funds they hold at the Federal Reserve to each other, generally overnight.  It can be thought of as the rate banks charge each other.  This target rate is identified in a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which usually meets eight times a year.  The New York Fed affects this rate by trading government securities.

Money Supply:  The Federal Reserve typically alters the money supply by increasing or decreasing bank reserves.  (See prior post on Fractional Reserve Banking for details on bank reserves.)

Tax and Spend:  What else need be said?  Fiscal policy involves the government increasing or decreasing taxes and the amount of federal spending, which let’s face it, pretty much just goes up.