My Notes From The Green Mountain Class Action Lawsuit

0 comments

Check out my most recent article on Seeking Alpha giving an updated rationale behind our fund’s Short position in Green Mountain:

My Notes From The Green Mountain Class Action Lawsuit
by Yaron Ron Reuven

Anyone who has followed Green Mountain (GMCR), turned on CNBC at least once in the last couple of years, or simply browsed yahoo finance, knows that GMCR and its management have been party to a Class Action Lawsuit that has been nastier than most. What’s more interesting is that most people, including shareholders, have not actually read the lawsuit complaint page by page. Having a short position in the stock, which I discussed in my first SA article last month, we spend each waking hour searching the world for more information about each of our investments. read more »

“This Blog is for the purpose of sharing of personal opinion and should not be construed in any way as advice. The information contained in this report or information provided does not purport to be complete description of the securities, markets or developments referred to in this material. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. The contributors to this blog and or their affiliates may directly or indirectly have active positions in the securities that are mentioned. Expressions of opinion are as of this date and are subject to change without notice. This information is not intended as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any security referred to herein. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Ron Reuven is a registered principal of Reuven Enterprises Securities Division, Member FINRA/SIPC & Licensed MSRB Dealer, a fully owned subsidiary of Reuven Enterprises Inc. and is President & Managing Partner of Reuven Capital Investments, LP (long/short equity hedge fund).”

Rally Not Built on Complacency

0 comments

Another contribution from economists Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein.

There are three types of people involved in the prognostication business these days. The “end of the world” types, the “it’s a slower, post-apocalypse world” types, and the “everything is going to be OK” types.

For a long time now, we have been saying that the “end of the world” types are over-doing it. This is actually a dangerous stance for us to take because the “end of the world” types can be very nasty to people who disagree with them. The “it’s a slower world” types are more cerebral and less nasty, but equally adamant. We, obviously, fall in the third camp.

No matter how we make our argument, and no matter how consistently the economy grows, the doubt and fear and disbelief just won’t go away. We noticed this recently, when conventional wisdom started to say that investors were being “complacent” these days.

In other words, when the equity markets go down, investors are “living in reality” and “accepting” that the economy and financial markets just aren’t in great shape. But when the equity markets go up, they are being schizophrenic, overly optimistic, and now some are saying “complacent.”

We couldn’t disagree more. Private sector payrolls have grown 160,000 per month in the past year. The unemployment rate is down almost a full percentage point from a year ago, while the size of the labor force is up (just like it was up in 2010, too). Over the past four weeks, unemployment claims have averaged 10% lower than the same period a year ago.

Retail sales are up 6.5% from a year ago; orders for long-lasting durable goods are up 12.1%, and auto sales are up 8.4%.

Perhaps most importantly, the long-awaited recovery in the housing sector has finally started. Housing starts in the fourth quarter hit the highest level since late 2008 and were up at a 32% annual rate compared to Q2. This was not all apartment buildings; single-family housing was up at a 13% annual rate in the second half of 2011.

Meanwhile, even after a recent rally, US equities remain incredibly cheap. Based on trailing after-tax earnings, the price-to-earnings ratio on stocks in the S&P 500 is roughly 13.5. On future earnings it’s even cheaper.

Flipping this over, so earnings are on top and price is on bottom, the “earnings yield” on stocks is 7.4%, compared to a 10-year Treasury yield of only 2%. This suggests that stocks are cheap relative to bonds.

In other words, rather than being the result of complacency, craziness or stupidity, the recent rally has a much more straightforward explanation. The economy is growing, it’s very likely to continue to grow, and if that is the case then stocks are grossly undervalued relative to bonds.

And the good news continues. With about 15% of the S&P 500 companies having reported earnings for the fourth quarter of 2011, 60+% have beaten street estimates.

Notice how none of this has anything to do with a third round of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve.   The last round of quantitative easing was essentially useless, with banks boosting their excess reserves from $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion.

Nonetheless, bank lending is picking up and accelerated after QE2 ended. This has helped boost the M2 measure of money (Milton Friedman’s favorite gauge), which has also been growing faster since the end of QE2 than during it.

So far in 2012, the S&P 500 has had eleven up days versus only two down days.  That ratio probably won’t continue for the full year, but the idea that it is unwarranted, crazy or complacent is a point of view that is supported by a decidedly bearish set of assumptions.

Rather, it appears that the stock market is finally (or once again) beginning to realize that the world is not ending and that the recovery is not so fragile that it cannot last. We remain optimistic. We continue to believe that things are getting better and we don’t feel complacent at all.


This information contains forward-looking statements about various economic trends and strategies. You are cautioned that such forward-looking statements are subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and actual results could be materially different. There are no guarantees associated with any forecast and the opinions stated here are subject to change at any time and are the opinion of the individual strategist. Data comes from the following sources: Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Federal Reserve Board, and Haver Analytics. Data is taken from sources generally believed to be reliable but no guarantee is given to its accuracy.

“This Blog is for the purpose of sharing of personal opinion and should not be construed in any way as advice. The information contained in this report or information provided does not purport to be complete description of the securities, markets or developments referred to in this material. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. The contributors to this blog and or their affiliates may directly or indirectly have active positions in the securities that are mentioned. Expressions of opinion are as of this date and are subject to change without notice. This information is not intended as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any security referred to herein. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Ron Reuven is a registered principal of Reuven Enterprises Securities Division, Member FINRA/SIPC & Licensed MSRB Dealer, a fully owned subsidiary of Reuven Enterprises Inc. and is President & Managing Partner of Reuven Capital Investments, LP (long/short equity hedge fund).”

Double Dip Recession or Buying Opportunity? Part II

0 comments

It was only a few short weeks ago that I wrote the first part of this article—a time where the market tunnel only seemed to get darker, with no light in sight.  After one of the worst September starts recorded, we have just ended the 4th day in a row of market gains.  The truth of the matter is that neither one of the facts stated in the preceding sentence really has much value for long term investors.  There are so many unanswered questions and conflicting opinions from “authorities” surfacing the exchanges, investors, and markets alike, are starting to get some serious whiplash damage from all of this volatility.

All investors really want today is their confidence, finally attained just a few short months ago, back.  As discussed previously, confidence is not a tangible item, and can be gained just as quickly as it was lost—and [ironically] for the very same underlying reasons in some cases.   But in order for investors to get their confidence back, we must commit to looking at the facts at hand, in addition to ignoring the noise.

America is only an AA rated country now!

If this statement was really true, it would be widely accepted by the investment community, and not contradicted daily by the positive performance of the US treasury prices and weekly auctions following the downgrade.  I believe my wife was best at putting this rating downgrade in perspective by saying “we’re AA in comparison to what/who?” A rating of anything is always compared to a certain “par” standard if you will.  With that being said, who is better than the US right now? Not by some controversial rating agency, but reality.  Would you prefer to have your money held in the other countries that are still rated AAA, just because of their rating—ignoring the fact that they depend on our economy and currency more than we will ever be able to depend on theirs?

It seems to me that the S&P ignored their own systems and decided to publicize their personal opinions of our current administration and political situation by issuing this downgrade.  None of us were happy about the games our government has been playing recently, but I don’t think anyone else stopped doing their job in retaliation.

*Of course everyone knows the story about how this very same “Rating Agency” completely enabled the subprime market debacle by issuing AAA ratings to any issuer that would just pay them their fee, regardless of how horrifying the underlying securities were. To make matters worse, they issued a AAA rating on a subprime mortgage security right after they downgraded the United States of America just last month.  So let me get this straight, the S&P believes that a bunch of “individuals with a faulty credit history” are more likely to pay their debt off—in an economy where I would boldly assume some of them are currently unemployed—than the richest country in the world, that is coincidentally capable of printing their own currency?  Regardless of what your political opinion is (I’m not a fan either), think about the absurdity of that statement for a second. On one hand, we have individuals that have a proven faulty credit track record, and are likely collecting the government’s endless unemployment money.  While on the other, we have the richest country in the world, that can print more money if they are not successful at generating the money fast enough to pay their debts.  It seems to me that McGraw Hill (owner of the S&P) should take steps to completely shut down the agency (or at least replace everyone from top to bottom) before they make the move, recently announced, to split up the company.  To summarize, a rating is only as good as the quality of the rater.  Since the S&P has not only acted in what my wife believes to be borderline Treason, but also infected the markets with their stupidity, I feel like if we cannot force them to be shut down, we should at least ignore their ratings on the USA.

Meredith Whitney and the Municipal Blowup That Never Happened

It was just a year ago when analyst Meredith Whitney gave a prediction that the $3+ Trillion Municipal Bond market will have some 50 to 100 major blowups, totaling hundreds of billions.  Fortunately she was wrong.  As of May of 2011 (when I revised my 2009 Municipal Bond article with some recent facts), there were only a total of 64 Municipal defaults totaling $5.4 Billion (0.2% of the market)  since the start of the recent crisis.  This of course does not mean that other defaults are not a possibility, because as we all know “past performance is not a guarantee of future results.”  The point I am trying to make is that the fear of danger is sometimes more destructive than the danger itself.

There are quite a few municipalities that have to cut costs and explore multiple measures in order to address the current circumstances.  But I don’t believe we are quite at the point where Mrs. Whitney’s prediction is something to be concerned about.  It was not too long ago where the media wouldn’t shut up about the risk of default by the state of California (and others).  The way I looked at it then and now is that if the government was generous enough to bail out some private financial institutions, and foreign countries, at their time of need, I would expect them to lend a hand or two to one of their own states, especially when that state is considered one of the top economies in the world today (even after the crises).

Although Whitney’s prediction has not come to fruition, she’s not alone in this business.  As Vince Lombardi once said, “If you’re not making mistakes, you’re not trying hard enough.”  In this business, both bulls and bears are bound to be right at some point.  The tough part is the timing.  As a side note, Whitney recently announced on CNBC that she may be launching a new rating system to compete with the S&P, and other rating agencies.  Her timing on starting the new business couldn’t be more perfect, and the competition is too busy digging their own grave.

Is the Volatility Here to stay?

Though this may not be the most optimistic section of this article, I am afraid that the answer to that question is more important than anything else I have written, if you plan on investing in the market.   Simply put, the volatility is here to stay and will only get worse. In fact I have been predicting higher volatility and 1000+ point swings/day, as the new normal for some time now.  I believe that time is near, if not already here.  On a positive note, the volatility does not always have to be on the negative side of the market.  It could just as easily go up as it did go down recently.

Most non-professional investors are passive on the day to day movement of the markets, and usually look at the closing prices for the market indices.  The Dow Jones ends up or down a couple of hundred, and the others are performing the same.  From that perspective, this is a movie we have seen countless times for over the past decade.  What many of these investors don’t realize are the huge tsunami swings that we have to navigate from the open to the close of business each day.  These swings can easily add up to over 5% in a matter of hours, and sometimes even minutes.

The cause of this volatility has nothing to do with the fundamentals of our economy or markets.  It has to do with the change in the infrastructure of our markets today, to cater to High Frequency Trading firms, who have taken control and responsibility for the majority of the daily trading in our markets.   When I first came into this industry in the late 90’s, this computerized trading monster was a very small part of the market, which was mostly unnoticed.  Today, HFT firms control close to 90% of the daily trading volumes. These HFT firms have created algorithm programs that allow their computer systems to make their trading decisions for them, and take action to execute those decisions without human interference.  What, when, how much to buy or sell.   Since a computer does not have the physical and emotional limitations that flesh and blood have, it can execute thousands of trades in seconds, in comparison to a typical trader that can just do a few.

The advocates of High Frequency Trading continuously argue that this additional volume has benefited investors by making the markets much more liquid, which has led to a rapid decrease in trading costs.  That sounds great and all, but “At what cost?”

What many investors and regulators have not yet realized is that High Frequency Trading has changed the markets’ infrastructure to such a degree that it has created a systemic problem that could overwhelm any crises we have yet to see. Although liquidity and lower costs are definite pluses for investors, the increase in volatility is something that will only get more extreme as more and more HFT firms open up shop, while existing ones increase their computer power.  To breakdown this complex new problem into very simple context, here is the root of the problem.  Despite the fact that each of these HFT firms may have different algorithms to use for their own trading, they’re all indirectly tied to each other.    So let’s say 100 computers have some XYZ Index on their radar screen.  Once XYZ reaches a certain target (whether a price target, percentage move, or any other trigger), many of these computers will end up executing the same trade at the same time, magnifying the effect dramatically more than any human can ever handle—think May 6th, 2010 flash crash.   These genius mathematical programs have a simple mathematical flaw—there can only be just so many trigger points.   So regardless of how each of these algorithms were calculated to come up with the trigger point, once that point is hit, they all take the same action—magnifying the effect on the (XYZ Index )market with very few limitations.

This magnified effect can happen in both directions so quickly that investors have been part of market swings of hundreds of points without even having enough time to realize that it even happened.   This systemic problem has changed the infrastructure of the marketplace to such a degree that I have recently come to the conclusion that most traditional investors are in such an uneven playing field, it would be close to impossible for many of them to make money in the market in the years ahead without making drastic changes. This is not because I believe the market won’t go up, but rather because the volatility from point A to point B is going to be so extreme, that most investors will not be able to survive the journey.

It’s not about one strategy or another.  Whether you buy and hold, like we have done for clients since I first started in the business, or trade in and out of the market, I believe any plain vanilla strategy is at a disadvantage.  Mutual funds that only depend on their investments going up, since they do not short any investments, are eventually going to either become obsolete or restructured.  Traditional buying and holding is still a good core foundation, but to be effective it must utilize additional tools most investors are just not familiar with, nor nearly active enough to truly utilize effectively.  Diversifying in everything (or some index) is not really investing in my opinion, and just says the investor has no clue what they’re doing.   Buying stocks because of their dividend yield does not make much sense to me either.  A 5% dividend is nice plus for some people, but does that really matter if the stock is down 40%?

Trading the market day to day may have become cheaper for investors to do on their own using discount brokers, but will inevitably lead to much higher losses for many.  This is not to say that HFT is going to be the only way to make money, but rather to say that the game is changed enough to force anyone interested in having a real chance to adapt to the markets regularly.  Of course I have always had a biased opinion about investors using professionals to manage their money, but something tells me that I won’t have to continue arguing that point for very much longer.

Long Term buy and hold is still my preferable choice of investment strategy.  But the only way this can be done effectively, is if we add countless tools to hedge our positions, use multiple asset classes, navigate the market opportunities carefully & regularly, and constantly tweak the strategy in order for it to adapt to the lightning speed changes we are racing against every day.

To say that the last few months have been a difficult market environment would be an understatement.    Few investors have escaped the market’s wrath unscathed, at least not intentionally.  But this leads me to my core point of this article, strategy!  One of the most difficult things for a money manager to do is to know when to second guess themselves, and when to just adjust.  Most investors that are losing money automatically believe that something is wrong with their investments.  This may be the case, but rarely is it the case for all of your holdings if your money manager did his job to begin with.  Although there are quite a few economic and political problems the world (and some businesses) is facing today, the facts show that the problems are not as great as it may seem.  It really matters how you view everything.  For some a 9% unemployment number is horrifying, while others can simply look at the fact that it also means we have 91%% employment.  Of course we can always improve, and I am optimistic that we will in time.  The adjustments necessary for most portfolios have more to do with the infrastructure of the market than the economic circumstances we’re in.  It is very difficult to convince the world (and investors) to take action before the problem is there, but hopefully many will take action before it is in fact too late.

All the best,

Yaron “Ron” Reuven

President & CEO

“This Blog is for the purpose of sharing of personal opinion and should not be construed in any way as advice. The information contained in this report or information provided does not purport to be complete description of the securities, markets or developments referred to in this material. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. The contributors to this blog and or their affiliates may directly or indirectly have active positions in the securities that are mentioned. Expressions of opinion are as of this date and are subject to change without notice. This information is not intended as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any security referred to herein. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Ron Reuven is a registered principal of Reuven Enterprises Securities Division, Member FINRA/SIPC & Licensed MSRB Dealer, a fully owned subsidiary of Reuven Enterprises Inc. and is President & Managing Partner of Reuven Capital Investments, LP (long/short equity hedge fund).”
← Previous Posts

Sign up to my free newsletter

Categories