7/7/19: Investment for growth is at record lows for S&P500

Interesting chart via @DavidSchawel showing changes over time in corporate (S&P500 companies) distribution of earnings:

In simple terms:

1. Much discussed shares buybacks are still the rage: running at 31% of all cash distributions, second highest level after 34% in 2007. On a cumulated basis, and taking into the account already reduced free float in S&P 500 over the years, this is a massive level of buybacks.
2. 'Investment for growth' - as defined - is at 51% - the lowest on record.
3. Meaningful investment for growth (often opportunistic M&As) is at 38%, tied for the lowest with 2007 figure.

S&P 500 firms are clearly not in investment mode. Despite 'Trump incentives' - under the TCJA 2017 tax cuts act - actual capex is running tied to the second lowest levels for 2018 and 2019, at 26% of all cash distributions.

4/3/19: S&P 500 Share Price Support Scams are a Raging Trend

Having posted a record-breaking USD939 billion of shares repurchases in 2018, Corporate America is on track to set a new record-wrecking year of buybacks in 2019. per latest data from JPM (via @zerohedge), January-February 2019 saw USD187 billion worth of shares repurchases in S&P 500 index constituent companies.

This is a notch higher than in 2018 and almost 90 percent above 2017 period.

24/2/19: Buybacks vs Capex

U.S. corporates spending or 'investing' over the last 10 years:

• CapEx ($6.4T), including often non-productive M&As
• Buybacks ($4.9T) and 
• Dividends ($3.4T) 

via @mbarna6

Just another reminder why productivity growth is not being aided by cheap credit.

28/4/17: Russian Economy Update, Part 4: Aggregate Investment

The following is a transcript of my recent briefing on the Russian economy. 

This part (Part 4) covers outlook  for aggregate investment over 2017-2019. Part 1 covered general growth outlook (link here), part 2 covered two sectors of interest (link here) and part 3 concerned with monetary policy and the ruble (link here).

From the point of Russian economic growth, investment has been the weakest part of the overall ex-oil price dynamics in recent years.

Rosstat most recent data suggests that the recovery in seasonally adjusted total fixed investment continued in 1Q 2017, with positive growth in the aggregate now likely for the 2Q 2017:

• 4Q16 investment was down about 1% from 2015
• Total investment rose from 22.12% of GDP in 2015 to 25.63% in 2016, and is expected to moderate to 22.23% in 2017, before stabilsing around 22.9% in 2018-2019
• The investment dynamics are, therefore, still weak going forward for a major recovery to take hold
• However, 2017-2019 investment projections imply greater rate of investment in the economy compared to 2010-2014 average
• However, last year fixed investment was down by 11% from 2014
• This is primarily down to Rosstat revision of figures that deepened the drop in investment in 2015
• About a quarter of total aggregate investment in Russia comes from small firms and the grey economy
• Rosstat data suggests that such investment was roughly unchanged in 2016 compared to 2015
• Other fixed investments, which are mostly investments of large and mid-sized companies, shrank by about 1% in 2016
• This compounds the steep drops recorded in the previous three years (down 10% in 2015 alone), so the level of investment last year remained below that of the 2009 recession
• Investments of large and mid-sized companies within oil & gas production sector rose robustly in 2016
• This marked the third consecutive year of growth in the sector
• Much of the increases was driven by LNG sub-sector investments which is associated (at current energy prices) with lower profit margins 
• On the positive side, investments in LNG facilities helps diversify customer base for Russian gas exporters - a much-needed move, given the tightening of the energy markets in Europe
• In contrast to LNG sub-sector, investment in oil refining continued to shrink, sharply, in 2016 for the second year in a row, 
• Other manufacturing investment also recorded continued sharp declines
• The same happened in the electricity sector
• In contrast, following two years of contraction, investment in machinery and equipment stabilised for the mid- and large-sized corporates
• Construction sector activity was down 4% y/y in 2016, marking third consecutive year of declines
• Exacerbating declines in 2015, commercial and industrial buildings completions fell again in 2016
• Apartments completions also fell y/y marking the first drop in housing completions since 2010

As the chart above illustrates:

• The forecast if for 2017-2019 improvements in investment contribution to growth, with trend forecast to be above 2010-2014 average
• However, historically over 2000-2016 period, investment has relatively weak/zero correlation (0.054) with overall real GDP growth, while investment relative contribution to growth (instrumented via investment/growth ratio) has negative correlation with growth even when we consider only periods of positive growth
• This implies the need for structural rebalancing of investment toward supporting longer-term growth objectives in the economy, away from extraction sectors and building & construction

Going forward:

• Russia's industrial / manufacturing production capacity is nearing full utilisation 
• The economy is running close to full employment
• Leading confidence indicators of business confidence are firming up
• Corporate deleveraging has been pronounced and continues
• Corporate profitability has improved 
• Nonetheless, demand for corporate credit remains weak, primarily due to high cost of credit 
• Most recent CBR signal is for loosening of monetary policy in 2017, with current rates expected to drop to 8.25-8.5 range by the end of 2017, down from 10% at the start of the year
• Irrespective of the levels of interest rates, however, investment demand will continue to be subdued on foot of remaining weaknesses in structural growth and lack of reforms to improve business environment and institutions

Taken together, these factors imply that the recovery in fixed investment over 2017-2019 period is likely to be very slow, with investment recovery to pre-2015 levels only toward the end of forecast period.

Thematically, there is a significant investment gap remaining across a range of sectors with strong returns potential, including:

• Food production, processing and associated SCM;
• Transportation and logistics
• Industrial machinery and equipment, especially in the areas of new technologies, including robotics
• Chemicals
• Pharmaceuticals and health technologies

30/12/16: Corporate Debt Grows Faster than Cash Reserves

Based on the data from FactSet, U.S. corporate performance metrics remain weak.

On the positive side, corporate cash balances were up 7.6% to USD1.54 trillion in 3Q 2016 y/y, for S&P500 (ex-financials) companies. This includes short term investments, as well as cash reserves. Cash balances are now at their highest since the data records started in 2007.

But, there’s been some bad news too:

1. Top 20 companies now account for 52.5% of the total S&P500 cash holdings, up on 50.8% in 3Q 2015.
2. Heaviest cash reserves are held by companies that favour off-shore holdings over repatriation of funds into the U.S., like Microsoft (USD136.9 billion, +37.8% y/y), Alphabet (USD83.1 billion, +14.1% y/y), Cisco (USD71 billion, +20.1% y/y), Oracle (USD68.4 billion, +22.3%) and Apple (USD67.2 billion, +61.4%). Per FactSet, “the Information Technology sector maintained the largest cash balance ($672.7 billion) at the end of the third quarter. The sector’s cash total made up 43.6% of the aggregate amount for the index, which was a jump from the 39.3% in Q3 2015”
3. Despite hefty cash reserves, net debt to EBITDA ratio has reached a new high (see green line in the first chart below), busting records for the sixth consecutive quarter - up 9.9% y/y. Again, per FactSet, “at the end of Q3, net debt to EBITDA for the S&P 500 (Ex-Financials) increased to 1.88.” So growth in debt has once again outpaced growth in cash. “At the end of the third quarter, aggregate debt for the S&P 500 (Ex-Financials) index reached its highest total in at least ten years, at $4.57 trillion. This marked a 7.8% increase from the debt amount in Q3 2015.” which is nothing new, as in the last 12 quarters, growth in debt exceeded growth in cash in all but one quarter (an outlier of 4Q 2013). 3Q 2016 cash to debt ratio for the S&P 500 (Ex-Financials) was 33.7%, on par with 3Q 2015 and 5.2% below the average ratio over the past 12 quarters.

Net debt issuance is also a problem: 3Q 2016 posted 10th highest quarter in net debt issuance in 10 years, despite a steep rise in debt costs.

While investment picked up (ex-energy sector), a large share of investment activity remains within the M&As. “The amount of cash spent on assets acquired from acquisitions amounted to $85.7 billion in Q3, which was the fifth largest quarterly total in the past ten years. Looking at mergers and acquisitions for the United States, M&A volume slowed in the third quarter (August - October) compared to the same period a year ago, but deal value rose. The number of transactions fell 7.3% year-over-year to 3078, while the aggregate deal value of these transactions increased 23% to $564.2 billion.”

The above, of course, suggests that quality of the deals being done (at least on valuations side) remains relatively weak: larger deals signal higher risks for acquirers. This is confirmed by data from Bloomberg, which shows that 2016 median Ebitda Multiple for M&A deals of > USD 1 Billion has declined to x12.7 in 2016 from an all-time high in 2015 of x14.3. Still, 2016 multiple is the 5th highest on record. In part, this reduction in risk took place at the very top of M&As distribution, as the number of so-called mega-deals (> USD 10 billion) has fallen to 35 in 2016, compared to 51 in 2015 (all time record). However, 2016 was still the sixth highest mega-deal year in 20 years.

Overall, based on Bloomberg data, 2015 was the fourth highest M&A deals year since 1996.

So in summary:

• While cash flow is improving, leading to some positive developments on R&D investment and general capex (ex-energy);
• Debt levels are rising and they are rising faster than cash reserves and earnings;
• Much of investment continues to flow through M&A pipeline, and the quality of this pipeline is improving only marginally.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-12-30/trump-set-to-refill-m-a-punch-bowl-in-2017

19/12/16: Why Investment-less Growth: Explaining Secular Stagnation in Investment

One key component of the supply side secular stagnation is the notion that in recent years, corporate investment in the U.S. and other advanced economies have declined on a secular trend (or structurally). With low investment, there is low productivity growth and weak wages growth. The end result is not only lower economic growth, but also declining long term potential growth.

Since the thesis of supply side secular stagnation started making rounds in the economic policy literature, quite a few economists jumped into the debate proposing various explanations to the phenomena. To-date, however, there have not been an empirical study that looked at all reasonably plausible explanations on offer to assess which can account for the decline in capital investment.

German Gutierrez Gallardo and Thomas Philippon, in there paper “Investment-Less Growth: An Empirical Investigation” published this month by NBER do exactly that. The authors “analyze private fixed investment in the U.S. over the past 30 years.”

First, the authors establish that indeed, “investment is weak relative to measures of [firm] profitability and valuation – particularly Tobin’s Q, and that this weakness starts in the early 2000’s.” In other words, whilst firms remain profitable, they simply do not reinvest their profits at the same rate today as in the 1990s.

Per authors, there are “two broad categories of explanations: theories that predict low investment because of low Q, and theories that predict low investment despite high Q.”

As a reminder, Tobin’s Q is a ratio of total market value of the firm to total asset value of asset held by the firm. In simple terms, higher Q means that market value of the firm is higher relative to the cost of replacing the capital and other assets owned by the firm. Thus, a Q between 0 and 1 means that the cost to replace a firm's assets is greater than the value of its stock, so the stock is considered to be undervalued. A Q greater than 1 in contrast implies that a firm's stock is more expensive than the replacement cost of its assets, so the stock is overvalued.

So under the fist argument, if we observe low Q, firms are undervalued by the market and have no incentive to invest as they cannot raise capital for such investment from the markets that perceive the firm’s asset value to be already high (or above the firm value established in the market).

Under the second argument, something other than market valuations drives firm decision to invest or not. What that ‘something other’ is is a matter of various theories.

1. Some theories postulate that in the presence of financial market imperfections (high costs, low liquidity supply, high risk premiums etc), low investments prevail even when Q is high (market value of the firm >> total assets value). 
2. Other theories, including the one that is currently most favoured as an explanation for dramatic decline in productivity growth in recent years (over the alternative explanation of the ‘secular stagnation’ thesis), the problem is that even with high Q, there might be low investment because there is mis-measurement in the markets as to the value of total assets of the firm. This can happen when there are intangible (hard to value) assets held by the firm, or when assets are dispersed across different currencies, markets and geographic, making them hard to value. It is worth noting that the argument of intangibles is commonly used today to argue that there is no real secular stagnation or decline in productivity growth because “things are simply not measured properly anymore”.
3. Another view is that decreased competition (either due to technology - e.g. mega aggregators platforms such as google and apple, or due to regulation, or due to trade wars raging on, or broader trend of regionalisation of trade, etc) can reduce investment even in the times of higher Q (high market valuations).
4. Finally, there is always a view that firms might under-invest because of short-termism in management strategies or due to restrictive investment climate induced by tighter risk governance (the latter point may overlap with regulatory constraints).

The authors find no support for the first argument. In other words, they find that low Q is not causing low investment. No surprise here, as markets are hardly in the mood of attaching low value to firms. In fact, we have been going through a massive uplift in M&As and equity valuations.

Which means that low investment is happening despite high market valuations - we are in the second set of arguments.

The authors “do not find support for theories based on risk premia, financial constraints, or safe asset scarcity”. They also find “only weak support for regulatory constraints.”

“Globalization and intangibles explain some of the trends at the industry level, but their explanatory power is quantitatively limited,” and does not provide support for aggregate - across economy - explanation of low investment.

So here comes the kicker: “we find fairly strong support for the competition and short-termism/governance hypotheses. Industries with less entry and more concentration invest less, even after controlling for current market conditions. Within each industry-year, the investment gap is driven by firms that are owned by quasi-indexers and located in industries with less entry/more concentration. These firms spend a disproportionate amount of free cash flows buying back their shares.”

Let’s sum this up: short-termism is a problem that holds firms from investing more, and it is more pronounced in industries with less competition. Firms which are owned by investors or funds that focus on indexing (pursue investment returns in line with broader indices, e.g. benchmarking to S&P500) invest less. The investment part of secular stagnation thesis, therefore, is linked at least indirectly to financialization of the economies: the greater is the weight of broad markets in investor decision-making, the lower the investment and the shorter is the time horizon, it appears.



Full paper: Gutierrez Gallardo, German and Philippon, Thomas, Investment-Less Growth: An Empirical Investigation (December 2016). NBER Working Paper No. w22897. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2880335

13/9/16: U.S. business investment slump: oil spoil?

Credit Suisse The Financialist recently asked a very important question: How low can U.S. business investment go? The question is really about the core drivers of the U.S. recovery post-GFC.

As The Financialist notes: “Over the last 50 years, there has usually been just one reason that businesses have slashed investment levels for prolonged periods of time—because the economy was down in the dumps.”

There is a handy chart to show this much.

“Not this time”, chimes The Financialist. In fact, “Private, nonresidential fixed investment fell 1.3 percent in real terms over the previous year in the second quarter of 2016, the third consecutive quarterly decline.” This the second time over the last 50 years that this has happened without there being an ongoing recession in the U.S.

Per Credit Suisse, the entire problem is down to oil-linked investment. And in part they are right. Latest figures reported by Bloomberg suggest that oil majors are set to slash USD1 trillion from global investment and spending on exploration and development. This is spread over 6 years: 2015-2020. So, on average, we are looking at roughly USD160 bn in capex and associated expenditure cuts globally, per annum. Roughly 2/3rds of this is down to cuts by the U.S. companies, and roughly 2/3rds of the balance is capex (as opposed to spending). Which brings potential cuts to investment by U.S. firms to around USD70 billion per annum at the upper envelope of estimates.

Incidentally, similar number of impact from oil price slump can be glimpsed from the fact that over 2010-2015, oil companies have issued USD1.2 trillion in debt, most of which is used for funding multi annual investment allocations.

Wait, that is hardly a massively significant number.

Worse, consider shaded areas marking recessions. Notice the ratio of trough to peak recoveries in investment in previous recessions. The average for pre-2007 episode is a 1:3 ratio (per one unit recovery, 3 units growth post-recovery). In the current episode it was (at the peak of the recovery) 1:0.6. Worse yet, notice that in all previous recoveries, save for dot.com bubble crisis and most recent Global Financial Crisis, recoveries ended up over-shooting pre-recession level of y/y growth in capex.

Another thing to worry about for 'oil's the devil' school of thought on corporate investment slowdown: slump in oil-related investment should be creating opportunities for investment elsewhere. One example: Norway, where property investments are offsetting fully decline in oil and gas related investment. When oil price drops, consumers and companies enjoy reallocation of resources and purchasing power generated from energy cost savings to other areas of demand and investment. Yet, few analysts can explain why contraction in oil price (and associated drop in oil-related investment) is not fuelling investment boom anywhere else in the economy.

To me, the reason is simple. Investing companies need three key factors to undertake capex:
1) Surplus demand compared to supply;
2) Technological capacity for investment; and
3) Policy and financial environment that is conducive to repatriation of returns from investment.

And guess what, they have none of these in the U.S.

Surplus demand creates pressure factor for investment, as firms face rapidly increasing demand with stable or slowly rising capacity to supply this demand. That is what happens in a normal recovery from a crisis. Unfortunately, we are not in a normal recovery. Consumer and corporate demand are being held down by slow growth in incomes, significant legacy debt burdens on household and corporate balance sheets, and demographics. Amplified sense of post-crisis vulnerability is also contributing to elevated levels of precautionary savings. So there is surplus supply capacity out there and not surplus demand. Which means that firms need less investment and more improvement in existent capital management / utilisation.

Technologically, we are not delivering a hell of a lot of new capacity for investment. Promising future technologies: AI-enabled robotics, 3-D printing, etc are still emerging and are yet to become a full mainstream. These are high risk technologies that are not exactly suited for taking over large scale capex budgets, yet.

Finally, fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies uncertainty is a huge headache across a range of sectors today. And we can add political uncertainty to that too. Take monetary uncertainty alone. We do not know 3-year to 5-year path for U.S. interest rates (policy rates, let alone market rates). Which means we have no decent visibility on the cost of capital forward. And we have a huge legacy debt load sitting across U.S. corporate balance sheets. So current debt levels have unknown forward costs, and future investment levels have unknown forward costs.

Just a few days ago I posted on the latest data involving U.S. corporate earnings (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/09/7916-dont-tell-cheerleaders-us.html) - the headline says it all: the U.S. corporate environment is getting sicker and sicker by quarter.

Why would anyone invest in this environment? Even if oil is and energy are vastly cheaper than they were before and interest rates vastly lower...

11/6/16: Too Little CAPEX? Why, Even Investors are Catching Up

Much has been written about the lagging capex cycle in the global economy and its impact on global growth. Including on this blog. So here’s another nice chart, courtesy of BAML showing that investors currently hold extremely pessimistic view of the companies capex activities on aggregate:

“… and laugh again…” as Leonard Cohen proposed… 

18/4/16: Capital Gains Tax & Investment Distortions: Corporate Data from the U.S.

In our MBAG 8679A: Risk & Resilience:Applications in Risk Management class we have been discussing the links between taxation, optimal corporate capital structuring and investment, including the decisions to pursue M&A as an alternative strategy to disbursing cash to shareholders.

Lars Feld, Martin Ruf, Ulrich Schreiber, Maximilian Todtenhaupt and Johnnes Voget recently published a CESIfo Working paper, titled “Taxing Away M&A: The Effect of Corporate Capital Gains Taxes on Acquisition Activity” (January 26, 2016, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5738: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2744534). The paper links directly taxation structure to M&A decisions and outcomes.

Per authors, “taxing capital gains is an important obstacle to the efficient allocation of resources because it imposes a transaction cost on the vendor which locks in appreciated assets by raising the vendor’s reservation price in prospective transactions.” Note, this is an argument similar to the effects of limited interest deductions on mortgages and transactions taxes on property in limiting liquidity of real estate.

“For M&As, this effect has been intensively studied with regard to shareholder taxation, whereas empirical evidence on the effect of capital gains taxes paid by corporations is scarce. This paper analyzes how corporate level taxation of capital gains affects inter-corporate M&As.”

Specifically, “studying several substantial tax reforms in a panel of 30 countries for the period of 2002-2013, we identify a significant lock-in effect. Results from estimating a Poisson pseudo-maximumlikelihood (PPML) model suggest that a one percentage point decrease in the corporate capital gains tax rate would raise both the number and the total deal value of acquisitions by about 1.1% per year. We use this result to estimate an efficiency loss resulting from corporate capital gains taxation of 3.06 bn USD per year in the United States.”

I am slightly sceptical about the numerical estimate as the authors do not appear to control for M&A successes. However, since the lock-in mechanism applies to all types of re-investment projects, one can make a similar argument with respect to other forms of capex and investment. One way or the other, this presents evidence of distortionary nature of U.S. capital gains taxation regime.

9/2/16: We've Had a Record Year in M&As last... next, what?

Dealogic M&A Statshot for the end of December 2015 showed that global M&A volumes have increased for third year running, reaching USD5.03 trillion in 2015 through mid-December. Previous record, set in 2007, was USD4.6 trillion.

• 2015 annual outrun was up 37% from 2014 (USD3.67 trillion) 
• 2015 outrun was the first time in history that M&As volumes reached over USD5 trillion mark.
• 4Q 2015 volume of deals was the highest quarterly outrun on record at USD1.61 trillion, marking acceleration in deals activity for the year
• There is huge concentration of deals in mega-deal category of over USD10 billion, with 69 such deals in 2015, totalling USD1.9 trillion, more than double USD864 billion in such deals over 36 deals in 2014.
• Even larger, USD50 billion and over, transactions accounted for record 16% share of the total M&As with 10 deals totalling in value at USD798.9 billion.
• Pfizer’s USD160.0 billion merger with Allergan, officially an ‘Irish deal’, announced on November 23, is now the second largest M&A deal in history (see more on that here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/01/28116-irish-m-not-too-irish-mostly.html)

The hype of M&As as the form of ‘investment’ in a sales-less world (see here http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/02/9216-sales-and-capex-weaknesses-are-bad.html) is raging on and the big boys are all out with big wads of cash. Problem is:

• M&As are not that successful as a strategy for corporate growth (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/05/21515-global-m-and-economic-fundamentals.html), 
• They are pretty terrible deal for organic capital investment (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2015/11/141115-more-evidence-us-capex-cycle-is.html), and
• They are usually jobs subtractive, rather than jobs additive. 

The former, however, is trouble for investors, not management. The latter two are trouble for us, mere mortals, who want well-paying jobs. which brings us about to 'What's next?' question.

Given lack of organic revenue growth and profitability margins improvements, and given tightening of the corporate credit markets, one might assume that M&As craze will abate in 2016. Indeed, that would be rational. But I would not start banking on M&A slowdown returning companies to real capital spending. All surplus cash available for investment ex-amortisation and depreciation and ex-investment immediately anchored to demand growth (not opportunity-creating investment) will still go to M&As and share support schemes. And larger corporates, still able to tap credit markets, will continue racing to the top of the big deals. So moderation in M&As will likely be not as sharp as moderation in corporate lending, unless, of course, all the hell breaks loose in the risk markets.

14/11/15: More Evidence U.S. Capex Cycle is Still Lagging

In a recent post (link here), I covered the issue of shares buy-backs and the lack of capex at the S&P500 constituents level. A recent report by Credit Suisse titled "The Capital Deployment Challenge" takes a look at the same problem.

Per report: "Companies in the US market are currently in great health as corporate profitability is approaching historical highs. This high level of profitability has produced record levels of corporate cash, and thereby has created a challenge for managers: how to allocate all of this excess cash. Companies may choose to reinvest in their businesses – organically or through M&A – or they may return the cash to capital providers, through dividends, share buybacks or by paying down debt..."

"Historically, companies have deployed an average of 60% of cash flows in capital investment (28% in organic growth and 32% in M&A) and have returned  26% to shareholders (12% dividends and 14% share buybacks). In the past several years, the capital allocation balance has swung away from growth towards buybacks and dividends: capital invested has dropped to 53% (27% organic growth and 26% M&A), while cash returned to shareholders has increased to 36% (15% dividends and 21%
buybacks)."

A handy chart to illustrate the switching:

So Credit Suisse divide the S&P500 universe into two sets of companies: reinvestors and returners. The former represents companies which predominantly direct their cash balances to organic reinvestment and/or M&A, whilst the latter are companies that prefer, on balance, to use cash surpluses for dividends and/or shares buybacks.

The report looks at three metrics across each type of company: underperformers within each group - companies that underperformed their peers average in terms of total shareholder returns, outperformers - companies that outperform their peers average, and average across all companies.

Chart below shows the extent of differences across two types of companies and three categories in terms of cash flow return on investment (CFROI):

The chart above "shows that the initial level of returns on capital is generally lower for reinvestors than for returners, with an average of 9% and 11%, respectively. The reinvestors and returners who outperformed their peers both improved their CFROI. However, the outperforming reinvestors generated a greater operating improvement (180bps vs 150bps for returners)."

Which is all pretty much in line with what I said on numerous occasions before: no matter how you twist the data, average returns to not re-investing outpace returns from investing. Meaning that: either companies are getting worse at identifying and capturing investment opportunities or investment opportunities are thin on the ground. Or both...

11/11/15: Take a Buyback Pill: U.S. Corporates Shy Away from Capex

As buy-backs of shares inch down as the drivers of U.S. stocks valuations (chart below), things are not going much smoother for the hopes of a capex cycle restart in the U.S. corporate sector.

As the following chart from Goldman Sachs research shows, 2015 has been shaping up as yet another year of decline in investment pipeline for U.S. companies. Capex and R&D investment share of aggregate cash holdings by S&P 500 companies is expected to hit 41% this year, down from 47% in 2014 and 2013 and marking the lowest reading since 2007. Worse, Goldman expects 2016 figure to be even lower at 40%.

Goldman figures relating to ‘Investment for Growth’ indicator include M&As, which in my opinion should not be considered in this context, as success rate of M&As is extremely low (historically at around 30%) and current M&A valuations are frankly bonkers. 

H/T to @prchovanec

Take a look at stripped out mix of real investment against buybacks in ratio terms, per Goldman’s reported data:

As shown above, relative weight of shares buybacks in terms of cash allocations by U.S. carpets has been on the rising trend now in comparison to Capes & R&D spending since 2009 and it has been flat since 2010 on for the ratio of buybacks to dividends. In fact, combined weight of M&As and buybacks ratio to Capex & R&D is now at 0.98, the highest since 2007.

In simple terms, there is little indication in the Goldman (and other) numbers of any restart of Capex cycle and all indication, major U.S. corporates are living in a world of surplus liquidity and shortages of investable strategies and opportunities.