vendredi 31 janvier 2014

Going More Defensive: ETF Recommendations For February 3, 2014

Listed here are the latest ETF recommendations for the Tactical Asset Allocation (TAA) strategies I have discussed in my Seeking Alpha articles. The ETFs mentioned in this article are (in the order they appear):


1) Guggenheim Spin-Off ETF (CSD),


2) iShares Barclays Long-Term Treasuries (15-18 year) ETF (TLT)


3) Global X Top Guru Holdings ETF (GURU)


4) iShares S&P Europe 350 Index Fund ETF (IEV)


5) S&P 400 Mid-Cap SPDRs ETF (MDY)


6) Barclays Low Duration Treasuries (2 Year) ETF (SHY)


7) AdvisorShares Peritus High Yield Bond ETF (HYLD)


8) Vanguard Long-Term Government + Credit ETF (BLV)


9) iShares Barclays 7-10 Year Treasuries ETF (IEF)


10) PowerShares S&P-LSTA Senior Loan ETF (BKLN)


11) SPDR Barclays Convertible Bond ETF (CWB)


12) SPDR STOXX Europe 50 ETF (FEU)


13) SPDR Barclays International Corporate Bond ETF (IBND)


14) Schwab FTSE Developed Small-Cap Ex-U.S. ETF (SCHC)


15) PowerShares RAFI High Yield Bond ETF (PHB)


16) Schwab Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA)


17) SPDR Nuveen S&P High Yield Muni Bond ETF (HYMB)


18) Schwab Dow Jones U.S. REIT Index ETF (SCHH)


19) Schwab 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (SCHO)


To mimic the strategies, you should try to buy the ETFs of a particular strategy on the first business day of each semi-monthly period, preferably toward the end of the trading day (3:00 - 3:30 pm). However, making the trades anytime on the first trading day of a period should not significantly alter the returns. The first trading day of the next period is Feb. 3, 2014. Feb. 3rd is the day to make your trades.


The current semi-monthly period (that will not end until the close of Feb. 3rd) has produced negative returns for almost all of the strategies except the bond-only strategies. The aggressive/moderate strategies have larger losses than the conservative strategies, as expected. Most of the strategies have now turned defensive, going from equities to bonds and/or cash. This is one of the benefits of TAA strategies: the ability to quickly change to a defensive posture when market conditions show evidence of a downturn. The downturn may be short-lived (perhaps only a market correction, small or large), or it may be more dramatic (like the bear market of 2008). Only time will tell. But in the meantime, the TAA strategies are dictating a more defensive position.


Please use limit order trading at the last sell price if there is a large difference between bid and ask prices. Some of the ETFs are not heavily traded so there might be relatively large differences between bid and ask prices.


The strategies assume automatic rebalancing of the ETFs at the end of the first business day of a new period. In actual practice, this would require selling all holdings and buying new holdings at the start of each period, even if the holdings do not change. This procedure would increase costs due to excessive buying and selling of ETFs. So, in practice, rebalancing should be performed whenever all of the ETF recommendations change in a new period. In addition, rebalancing should be performed when the percentage of one ETF gets more than 5% out of line.


If you are using one of these strategies in a real money account, please send me a SA message and let me know. All I'm interested in knowing is how many people are really using this information, and what strategy you are using. Many people have expressed an interest in these strategies, but I would like to how many are really using them.


Aggressive CSD-Bond Strategy (almost called SSSEquity)


Jan. 2, 2014 CSD Return=+1.85%


Jan.16, 2014 CSD Return=-5.13%


Feb. 3, 2014 TLT


Total Return (including div.) YTD = -3.4% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Moderate AllAssetsExceptBonds Strategy


Jan. 2, 2014 GURU(50%), IEV(50%) Return=+1.60%


Jan.16, 2014 GURU(50%), MDY(50%) Return =-3.64%


Feb. 3, 2014 MDY(50%), SHY(50%)


Total Return (including div.) YTD = -2.1% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Conservative AssetBlend Strategy


Jan. 2, 2014 GURU(30%), IEV(30%), HYLD(40%) Return=+1.43%


Jan.16, 2014 GURU(30%), MDY(30%), BLV(40%) Return=-1.30%


Feb. 3, 2014 BLV(40%), MDY (30%), SHY (30%)


Total Return (including div.) YTD = +0.1% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Conservative Super Simple Savings Strategy


Jan. 2, 2014 CSD(60%), HYLD(40%) Return=+1.57%


Jan.16, 2014 CSD(60%), HYLD(40%) Return=-3.12%


Feb. 3, 2014 IEF(40%), TLT(60%)


Total Return (including div.) YTD = -1.6% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Bond-Only Strategy


Jan. 2, 2014 HYLD(100%) Return=+1.16%


Jan.16, 2014 BLV(100%) Return=+2.20%


Feb. 3, 2014 BLV


Total Return (including div.) YTD = +3.4% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Simple Bond Strategy on HYLD - Trade on Day of 30 MDA & 3 MDA Cross


Buy Jan. 2, 2014 Open Trade Return=+1.0%


Total Return (including div.) YTD = +1.0% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Simple Bond Strategy on BKLN - Trade on Day of 12 MDA & 3 MDA Cross


Buy Jan. 2, 2014 Sell Jan. 28, 2014 Return=+0.34%


Total Return (including div.) YTD = +0.3% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Conservative Schwab-Free Strategy


Jan. 2, 2014 CWB(25%), FEU(25%), IBND(25%), SCHC(25%) Return=+1.95%


Jan.16, 2014 CWB(25%), PHB(25%), SCHA(25%), SCHC(25%) Return=-2.44%


Feb. 3, 2014 HYMB(25%), PHB(25%), SCHH(25%), SCHO(25%)


Total Return (including div.) YTD = -0.5% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


For comparison, the total return (including dividends) Year-To-Date (YTD) of three benchmarks are presented below.


Equity Benchmark: SPY


Total Return (including div.) YTD = -2.6% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Bond Benchmark: AGG


Total Return (including div.) YTD = +1.5% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


Balanced (60% Equity/40% Bond) Benchmark: VBINX


Total Return (including div.) YTD = -0.5% (Starting COB Jan. 2, 2014)


These strategies have been backtested over a limited timeframe and shown to produce good growth with minimum risk, but future results may be dependent on factors not considered. Use these recommendations at your own risk.


Source: Going More Defensive: ETF Recommendations For February 3, 2014


Disclosure: I am long TLT, MDY, SHY, BLV, IEF, HYLD, HYMB, PHB, SCHH, SCHO. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





This Junior Silver Producer Should Be On Your Radar

SilverCrest (SVLC) owns the Santa Elena Mine in Mexico. The mine is a high-grade gold and silver producer. On January 16th, SilverCrest released the following:


2013 Operating Highlights (Compared to 2012)



  • Produced 779,026 ounces of silver, up 34%.

  • Produced 31,099 ounces of gold, down 6%.

  • Produced 2.66 million AgEq ounces in 2013, up 12%.

  • Silver and gold ore grade (GPT) loaded on pad up 52% and 13% respectively.

  • Average strip ratio (waste to ore) reduced from 4.25:1 to 2.56:1, a 40% decrease.


The company has not yet released its fourth quarter and full year financial results. That being said, following are financial highlights for the third quarter of 2013:


Q3, 2013 Financial Highlights (Compared to Q3, 2012)



  • Cash flow from operations $7.1 million ($0.07 per share) a decrease of 30%

  • Cash operating cost per silver equivalent ounce sold increased 5% to $7.96.

  • All-in sustaining cash costs per silver equivalent ounce sold decreased by 23% to $10.41.

  • Revenues reported - IFRS decreased 18% to $13.7 million.

  • Sales of 204,947 ounces of silver, another quarterly record, were up 35%.

  • Sales of 7,522 ounces of gold were down 5%.

  • Realized metal prices for ounces sold - silver price fell 31% to $22/oz and gold price fell 21% to $1,346/oz.

  • Bullion inventory at September 30, 2013, included 53,131 ounces of silver and 1,819 ounces of gold.

  • Net earnings amounted to $3.71 million ($0.03 per share), compared to $1.26 million ($0.01 per share).

  • Cash and cash equivalents totaled $24.1 million (at September 30, 2013) after capital investments of $14.4 million.

  • Working capital was $30.9 million at September 30, 2013.


The company is also nearing completion of a construction and expansion plan at Santa Elena. This includes the installation of a 3,000 TPD mill, which is 90% complete. The new processing facility has the potential to increase annual metal production to approximately 3-4 million ounces silver equivalent per year for the life of the mine. The new mill is scheduled to start in late Q1 2014.


The company is also constructing an underground decline that will access the deposit below the open pit. The total underground development has progressed to 2,265 metres as of December 31, 2013.


CEO Scott Drever said, "We look forward to a banner year in 2014 with the commissioning of the new processing facility in Q1 2014 and the expansion of our annual metals production to an estimated 3.3 to 3.5 million ounces of silver equivalent (55:1 Ag:Au)."


According to Jennings Capital: "SilverCrest is among a select group of juniors with the track record and asset base necessary to push it to the ranks of mid-tier producers." (See article here)


In an analyst note written on January 27th, Stuart McDougall of Jennings Capital wrote, "Management is already nearing the finish line on a capital redevelopment program aimed at doubling annual silver production rates at its Santa Elena mine. By year-end, we expect it to follow this up by outlining a clear path to a further doubling of production by way of the advanced La Joya project."


SilverCrest also owns 100% of the La Joya Project, a copper-silver-gold project in Durango State, Mexico. Last year the company released a PEA on La Joya showing potential to produce 2.1 million ounces of silver and 10.3 million pounds of copper over nine years at a cash cost of $10 per ounce of silver equivalent in the first three years.


McDougall has given the company a Buy recommendation with a one-year target price of $3.00 per share.


This is definitely one miner that you should be watching.


Source: This Junior Silver Producer Should Be On Your Radar


Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in SVLC over the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Secure Your Portfolio With A LOCK

If you've read the headlines in the financial news lately, this looks all too familiar to you.


"Market Down Third Day in a Row"


"Worst Day Since August 2013"


"Market Down Triple Digits."


And if these headlines have given you the jitters, let me give you some advice: take this news on a stock-by-stock basis because despite all of the headlines, what matters at the end of the day is how YOUR individual holdings are holding-up.


Easy to say, I know.


When I look at my individual holdings, I get no jitters at all. Why? First, I take a look at all of my holdings everyday so nothing comes as a surprise to me anymore. Second, I own about 100 different stocks spread-out amongst four different portfolios. Many of holdings like ILMN, MDVN, JAZZ etc. continue to do just fine and some are even hitting new highs despite the market jitters.


I also continue to find some great stocks using my Best Stocks Now app. I focus on the top stocks that my app comes up with one at a time every day to see if there's anything that interests me. Once my interest is piqued I check the stock chart to determine buy and sell points.


Well I just found another small-cap, U.S.-based stock out of the financial sector that I like and even added it to my aggressive growth accounts recently. The stock is LifeLock Inc. (LOCK) headquartered in Tempe, AZ and it's been on my radar for a while.



Data from Best Stocks Now App


LifeLock is a company that we didn't need ten, maybe not even five years ago. But today, it makes sense. LOCK provides proactive identity theft protection services for consumers and identity theft risk assessment as well as fraud protection.


You may have seen their ads on TV.


The company went public in 2012 at $6 per share and today it's trading at $19. With current events in the world (Target breach anyone?), this stock has the potential to go much further.


Performance



LOCK's performance has been tremendous so far. Over the past 12 months LifeLock has returned 106% to investors. And it has the potential to go even higher as the stock just broke-out again to new all-time highs.


LifeLock passes my performance test and gets a momentum grade 'A'.


Valuation


When I project out LOCK's earnings growth over the next five years, and then apply a multiple that I think is appropriate, I come up with a 5 year target price of around $35 per share.



As a reminder, the stock is currently trading at $19. LOCK has 87% upside potential. I like stocks with 80% upside potential or more. LifeLock not only passes my performance test, but my valuation test as well and earns a Gunderson Value Grade of 'B+'.


Stock Chart


My last test I require Best Stocks Now to pass is the stock chart test.


(click to enlarge)


As I look at the chart of LifeLock, I see that it is in a very strong uptrend.


I hate sideways trends.


I deplore downtrends.


I like nice uptrends.



In fact out of 3,795 stocks in my Best Stocks Now app database, LOCK comes in at #59. It is also a stock that I currently own at Gunderson Capital Mgt.



Source: Secure Your Portfolio With A LOCK


Disclosure: I am long LOCK. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Amazon Skidding On Thin Revenue Ice

The problem with companies that have high expectations backed into their stock is that if they miss the street's forecast by just a small margin, then they fall like a rock. That's what happened with Amazon (AMZN) after the closing bell on Thursday, when the company reported Q4 results. Interestingly enough, while the stock initially tanked, it covered most of the losses, only to tank again when the bell opened on Friday's session.


Just how bad did Amazon miss?




  • Revenue came in at $25.59 billion, missing expectations of $26.0 billion




  • EPS of $0.51, missing by a wide margin the street's expectation of $0.69




  • Revenue guidance for Q1 of $18.2-$19.9 billion, at the very low end of expectations




  • Guidance for Q1 Operating Income of ($200)-$200 million on expectations of $367.8 million.




In my opinion, when any stock misses EPS by a few pennies, it's no big deal, especially in Amazon's case, when the stock is priced at around $400.


It's not the first time Amazon missed off on EPS. It has done so many times before, but the market either ignored it or did not sell the stock off so much. This time the market took it real serious.


What I think spooked the market was the company's Q1 revenue guidance. Here's why. Let me show you the chart below.


AMZN Revenue (Quarterly) Chart


AMZN Revenue (Quarterly) data by YCharts


What a great chart! It's no wonder the street is putting such a high value on Amazon. This company has been delivering revenue growth year after year after year. However, with the recent guidance the company gave, this chart might change over the next quarters and might level off a bit. And if that happens, then the street will probably rethink what it wants to pay for Amazon's stock. Why?


For the past 10 years, Q1 revenue has been almost equal to or higher than Q4 revenue of the previous year. This has happened for the past 10 years except for two times. In Q1 of 2009 revenue was slightly lower than Q4 of 2008 and recently, Q1 of 2013 was lower than Q4 revenue of 2012.


If you look at the above chart and project an imaginary line of the guidance the company provided, it will be less that the revenue the company recorded in Q4 of 2012. That's what spooked the street. In other words, the revenue acceleration curve might level off.


And if that happens, then everything changes for Amazon's valuation, because like I said in the beginning, when companies that have a lot of expectations baked into their stock miss guidance or street expectations, they fall and they fall big.


For the time being, however, I think the market will give Amazon the benefit of doubt. At least that's the feeling I get from the recent ratings changes to Amazon's stock. Just after the current quarter most analysts lowered their price target, but not by much.


























































































































1/31/2014



S&P Equity Research



Downgrade



Hold -> Sell



1/31/2014



Jefferies Group



Boost Price Target



$390.00 -> $450.00



1/31/2014



Raymond James



Lower Price Target



$446.00 -> $443.00



1/31/2014



UBS AG



Lower Price Target



Buy



$465.00 -> $450.00



1/31/2014



Pacific Crest



Lower Price Target



$475.00 -> $460.00



1/31/2014



Goldman Sachs Group Inc.



Boost Price Target



$450.00 -> $460.00



1/31/2014



Deutsche Bank



Boost Price Target



$400.00 -> $475.00



1/31/2014



Citigroup Inc.



Lower Price Target



$457.00 -> $454.00



1/31/2014



Cantor Fitzgerald



Lower Price Target



$425.00 -> $415.00



1/31/2014



Benchmark Co.



Boost Price Target



Buy



$400.00 -> $500.00



1/31/2014



Oppenheimer



Lower Price Target



Outperform



$500.00 -> $475.00



1/31/2014



Stifel Nicolaus



Boost Price Target



Buy



$400.00 -> $440.00



1/31/2014



B. Riley



Boost Price Target



Buy



$409.00 -> $425.00



1/31/2014



CRT Capital



Lower Price Target



Buy



$430.00 -> $420.00



1/31/2014



Cowen and Company



Boost Price Target



Positive



$423.00 -> $440.00



1/31/2014



Susquehanna



Reiterated Rating



Positive



$500.00 -> $475.00



Source: http://ift.tt/1bg3mW8


For the most part price targets are still above the current price of Amazon's stock as per Friday, which is still hopeful and only S&P Equity Research rates the stock a sell.


However, if the company misses one more sequential street estimate, or if guidance from the company is such that the street starts modeling Amazon with lower revenue growth, Amazon's stock will be hit very hard.


Investors should keep this scenario in their minds, because it will make all the difference in the world if Amazon's stock gets modeled from analysts for lower growth ahead.


Source: Amazon Skidding On Thin Revenue Ice


Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Buy Caterpillar Before Sales Turn Around

Caterpillar's (CAT) quarterly results pretty much revealed what many investors were already expecting: ongoing sales declines. Caterpillar reported fourth quarter 2013 revenues of $14.4 billion which compares against $16.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012 (a decline of 10%). The decline is solely attributable to Caterpillar's Machinery and Power Systems division whose sales declined to $13.6 billion from $15.4 billion a year ago (down 11%). However, Caterpillar achieved a respectable turnaround in profit in spite of challenging macroeconomic conditions: The equipment company delivered earnings of $1.0 billion which compares against $697 million in Q4 2012. Caterpillar's diluted EPS came in at $1.54 and compares against $1.04 in the fourth quarter of 2012 (an increase of 48%).


Caterpillar also reported full-year 2013 revenues of $55.7 billion vs. $65.9 billion in 2012 (a decline of 16% which was driven by slowing global mining activity). Earnings fell 33% to $3.8 billion vs. $5.7 billion in 2012 and Caterpillar's diluted full-year EPS slumped 32% to $5.75 from $8.48 a year earlier. Despite falling sales and a contracting mining sector, Caterpillar still achieved record operating cash flows of $9.0 billion in its equipment division boosted by a $2.9 billion decline in inventory.


Strong cash flow generation leading to share repurchases


One of the most notable characteristics of the company is its focus on shareholder remuneration. Even though Caterpillar took an almost $10.2 billion hit in sales in 2013, the company repurchased $2.0 billion worth of common shares during the year. Caterpillar also announced two more nuggets for shareholders: First, Caterpillar intends to repurchase another $1.7 billion worth of common stock during the first quarter of 2014. Second, the company announced a new $10 billion stock repurchase program which was approved by the Board of Directors. Share repurchases come in addition to a regular cash dividend which Caterpillar hiked by 15% to $0.60 per share in 2013.


Ongoing restructuring costs and outlook 2014


2013 wasn't a good year for Caterpillar as well as the mining sector in general. A slowdown of the Chinese economy, a vital driver for global commodity and construction equipment demand, has led to significantly lower sales for Caterpillar's mining products. Caterpillar now expects approximately $56 billion in sales in 2014 which is about the same level as in 2013.


2013 was also a year of restructuring for Caterpillar which included tackling structural costs, facility closures, downsizing and layoffs. Caterpillar still expects about $400-500 million in restructuring costs in 2014 which brings estimated 2014 earnings per share in the neighborhood of $5.30.


In the short term, investors are likely to focus on Caterpillar's sales development. Improving economic conditions, especially in China, and rebounding equipment sales could be a powerful catalysts for Caterpillar's stock price.


Trailing twelve month share performance


Caterpillar's high reliance on the mining sector and exposure to the construction business in China has taken a toll on Caterpillar's share price in 2013. Most notably, Caterpillar was thrown under the bus as renowned shortseller Jim Chanos from Kynikos Associates disclosed a Caterpillar short position in July 2013.


(click to enlarge)


Caterpillar's heavy dependence on China has caused the return differential between Caterpillar and other construction equipment manufacturers to widen in 2013. Cummins (CMI) gained 20% over the last two years while AGCO (AGCO) returned 3%. Deere & Company (DE), a long-standing equipment manufacturer with a focus on farm machinery, lost 1% while Caterpillar lost 15%.


(click to enlarge)


Market valuation


Caterpillar trades at just above 16 times forward earnings which makes it the most expensive company in the peer group of construction and farm equipment manufacturers. However, earnings and sales expectations for Caterpillar appear to be quite pessimistic and investors are usually hesitant to purchase a stock unless they see some meaningful improvements in the underlying profitability. I think that Caterpillar has interesting rebound potential when analysts update their earnings outlook which should give Caterpillar's shares tailwinds particularly if China's real estate and construction sectors gain momentum.


Caterpillar pays investors $0.60 per share in dividends which equates to a dividend yield of 2.56%. The company has an extraordinary shareholder remuneration record stretching back well into the 1920s and which creates confidence that management will keep its implicit promise of dividend continuity. Caterpillar also has the highest dividend yield in the construction- and farming equipment manufacturing sector.



The table below summarizes the results for Caterpillar as well as the peer group and depicts the premiums to the P/E, P/S and D/P ratios the company trades at.


(click to enlarge)


Conclusion


While 2013 was a bad year to be a China-focused mining equipment manufacturer, the company should get credit for achieving record operating cash flow in its important Machinery and Power Systems segment. Also, the company has counteracted the cyclical decline in high-margin equipment sales with deep-cutting cost savings programs that helped Caterpillar become a leaner company which will serve Caterpillar well when the Chinese economy rebounds. In addition, Caterpillar is extremely focused on delivering value for shareholders via extensive share repurchase programs. The announced $10 billion share buyback program is likely to provide good support for Caterpillar's stock price.


Caterpillar is a good investment for contrarian investors who believe that the company has already found its bottom. I think Caterpillar's stock will react very positively to better Chinese economic data and its share price will probably recover before the company announces an uptick in equipment sales. Anti-cyclical investors who think Caterpillar's sales will benefit from higher Chinese growth in the coming years should consider an investment in the construction equipment company. Contrarian long-term BUY.


Source: Buy Caterpillar Before Sales Turn Around


Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Starbucks: Pullback Would Only Make The Stock More Attractive

Since achieving its 52-week high of $82.50 in November 2013, the share price of Starbucks (SBUX) has pulled back by almost 14% due to market's negative sentiment on the company's growth prospects in the US market. In my view, the dip indeed presents a great entry opportunity for this quality growth stock as I believe investors' concern is overblown based on the reasons discussed below.


There are numerous drivers for continued strong growth…


Investors' concern mainly focuses on the slowdown of same-store growth in the US market. The company's Q1 2014 performance appears to support this view as the quarterly same-store growth rate came in 5%, missing the 6% consensus estimate. Nevertheless, I believe this modest growth slowdown does not represent an inflection point (what market is currently assuming) for Starbucks' promising growth potential given the following:



  • First of all, even the 5% US same-store sales growth is already superior to most of the company's peers in the US market.



  • Management admitted that the slowdown is attributed to a sign that consumers are shifting their spending from brick and mortar stores to online. Being able to anticipate the shift in early stage, management has rolled out a few initiatives to mitigate the headwind. The company's gift card program has been very successful. Approximately $1.4B gift cards were sold globally in the past holiday season, which represents a spectacular year-on-year growth of 24%. According to management, only $600M value of the gift cards were spent in Q1 2014, and therefore the remaining impact from the gift card spending will be felt in the remainder of fiscal 2014. Another successful initiative is the Starbucks Rewards digital program. To date, weekly transactions have reached 5M times and approximately 30% of the US consumer purchases are paid through this method. Given the success and management's continued effort in driving further developments of these programs, it is believed that the competition from online spending is likely to have limited impact on the company's store traffic.



  • Starbucks acquired bakery chain La Boulange in 2012 with a goal to enrich its bakery menu to lure more store traffic. The company has yet to roll out the menu in its US stores but management indicated that early testing on consumer acceptance was very excited as the new menu has been one of the key drivers for the tested store traffic. Management expects a full La Boulange roll-out by the end of fiscal 2014, which in my opinion will likely bring in a material revenue upside in fiscal 2015 and onwards. Aside from La Boulange menu, management also plans to introduce new offerings including carbonated beverage and tea that would likely increase food attachment rates.



  • On the packaged goods front, the company has announced launch plan for a few new products including cold juices, yogurt, granola bars, and dried fruits under Evolution Fresh brand. Given the success of the company's existing consumer packaged products and effective distribution channel, Credit Suisse estimated that the incremental revenue and EPS from these new products would be $750M and $0.14, respectively, with an assumption that Starbucks only captured a small amount of market share in each product vertical.


Lastly, as the company's internal business remains in early stage (small revenue percentage relative to the US sales), it is expected that continued expansion in under-penetrated markets (e.g. China) will serve as a primary long-term growth driver.


Valuations are inexpensive on relative basis…


The stock now trades at 13.4x forward (next 12 months) EV/EBITDA multiple and 25.5x forward P/E ratio. Both metrics are above the comps average (see chart below). However, after factoring in Starbucks' superior consensus long-term earnings growth potential, the stock's PEG is only 1.37x, which is at 14% discount to the comps average (1.60x). Given the company's above-average ROIC and low leverage, I view the discounted PEG to be an attractive valuation level.


(click to enlarge)


Starbucks' forward P/E multiple now trades at 67.4% premium over the same multiple of S&P 500 Index, which is compelling to me provided that 1) the P/E premium averaged at 83% in the past 12 months; 2) Starbucks' long-term earnings growth estimate of 18.6% is considerably above the average estimate of 8.5% for S&P 500 companies; and 3) the stock's PEG is 24% below the level of S&P 500 Index (1.80x) after considering the earnings growth potential.


(click to enlarge)


From a historical standpoint, Starbucks' trailing EV/EBITDA multiple of 15.5x now trades almost in line with its 3-year average of 15.1x despite the facts that (see chart below):


(click to enlarge)


1) The company's annual ROIC metric increased gradually from 20.8% in fiscal 2011 to 25.8% as at December 31, 2013;


2) Annual EBITDA margin increased from 17.7% to 19.8% over the same period and consensus estimate predicts the margin to reach 24.3% by fiscal 2016; and


3) Annual revenue growth increased from 9.4% to 12.2% over the same period and market only anticipates the growth rate to modestly slow down to 10.7% by fiscal 2016.


In summary, my view is that the current pullback has presented an attractive risk reward profile for the stock given the identifiable catalysts and inexpensive valuation just discussed. I believe a buy rating is warranted.


All charts are created by the author except for the consensus estimate tables, which are sourced from S&P Capital IQ, and all financial data used in the article and the charts is sourced from S&P Capital IQ unless otherwise specified.


Source: Starbucks: Pullback Would Only Make The Stock More Attractive


Disclosure: I am long SBUX. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Global Bond ETFs With Little Value


Our last piece on global bonds talked about the larger opportunity set outside of the U.S. That set includes developed and developing markets that range from Sweden to Indonesia.


In this piece, we will begin to examine a few developed market products that we do not feel warrant a place in most investor's portfolios.


Developed Market Debt



  • SPDR Barclays International Treasury Bond ETF (BWX): This ETF has developed country debt mostly in Europe and Japan. The top three countries are the U.K., Japan and Italy mostly in government bonds. The duration is 7 with an SEC 30 day yield of 1.66%. This ETF holds approximately 2 billion in assets and should be sold for the following reasons. The interest rate risk is much too high for the yield compensation. There is value in some government bonds in developed countries but it takes a strong team to determine those values. Also, it has a focus on investment grade, non-dollar debt so an investor is stuck in non-dollar bonds and little opportunity for high yield opportunities. We understand the goal is to expand the Treasury Bond opportunity set, but unless your investment committee has a strong positive view on the return and risk characteristics of this instrument, it should be sold. You would need an in-depth view on the monetary policies of the major countries in the ETF.



  • SPDR Barclays Capital Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF (BWZ): This ETF has developed country bonds mostly in Europe and Japan. The top three countries are Japan, Germany and Italy mostly in government debt. The duration is 1.81 with an SEC 30 day yield of 0.63%. This ETF holds approximately 238 million in assets and should be sold for the following reasons. The interest rate risk is too high for the yield compensation and while there is value in some government bonds in developed countries it takes a strong team to determine those values. Unless your investment committee has a strong positive view on the return and risk characteristics of this instrument and the underlying country's monetary policy, currency outlook and credit conditions, then an active manager may be a better option.



  • iShares S&P/Citigroup 1-3 Year International Treasury Bond ETF (ISHG): This ETF has developed country bonds mostly in Europe and Japan. The top three countries are Japan, Italy and France mostly in government debt. The duration is 1.81 with an SEC 30 day yield of 0.23%. This ETF holds approximately 173 million in assets and should be sold for the following reasons. The interest rate risk is too high for the yield compensation. There is value in some government bonds in developed countries but it takes a strong team to determine those values. Also, it has a focus on investment grade debt non-dollar and that leaves out high yield and dollar denominated bonds. Unless your investment committee has a strong positive view on the return and risk characteristics of this instrument and the underlying countries, it should be sold.



  • iShares S&P/Citigroup International Treasury ETF (IGOV): This ETF has developed country bonds mostly in Europe and Japan. The top three countries are Japan, Italy and France mostly in government debt. The duration is 6.85 with an SEC 30 day yield of 1.37%. This ETF holds approximately 600 million in assets and should be sold due to the following reasons. The interest rate risk is too high for the yield compensation. There is value in some government bonds in developed countries but it takes a strong team to determine those values. Also, it has a focus on investment grade debt non-dollar and that leaves out high yield and dollar denominated bonds. Unless your investment committee has a strong positive view on the return and risk characteristics of this instrument and the underlying countries, it should be sold.


Zenith recommends that firms sell any and all of these holdings. The portfolios are reasonably stuck in non-US Government Debt in advanced countries in their local currency. These two attributes place an investor in an inflexible position. Additionally, they are left with uncompensated interest rate risk, even with the short term funds.


We have not covered fees as we would not invest in these funds even if the fee was zero, as they do not possess any attractive attribute for investment. The only way a firm could legitimize a purchase is if they hold a strong view on the monetary policy, interest rate direction and inflation pressures in Japan and greater developed Europe, as well as Great Britain. A seasoned manager would best be suited to extract the value in each of these markets given a solid team with macro experience.


Sell and avoid all four of these products.


Source: Global Bond ETFs With Little Value


Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)






Learn More







  • Research new investment ideas

  • Reduce risk





Thank you for your interest in Seeking Alpha PRO

We look forward to contacting you shortly for a conversation.







PORTFOLIO













Symbol AlertsPriceChg% Chg



New!


Follow these related stocks



(Click to add stocks to your portfolio)








This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





The 2 Big Failures Of The Bernanke Fed

The Bernanke era at the Fed came to an end today and many are already opining on what it means. Many smart things have been said about the Bernanke Fed, but most accounts have overlooked two of its biggest failures. No assessment of the Bernanke Fed is complete without recognizing them. So what were these two failures?


First, the Bernanke Fed never tried Abenomics. That is, for all the Fed has done over the past five years it never tried to do the kind of monetary regime change now being done by the Bank of Japan. A year ago, Japanese monetary authorities shook things up by credibly committing to permanently raising the nominal size of the Japanese economy. The evidence so far shows this program to be a smashing success. From the start, the Bernanke Fed took the opposite approach. It credibly committed to a temporary expansion of its balance sheet. The U.S. monetary injections, therefore, were never intended to be permanent and this makes all difference in the efficacy of monetary policy.


So for all the praise the Bernanke Fed gets for preventing the second Great Depression, it should be equally noted that it allowed the long slump. By failing to do Abenomics for the U.S. economy, the Bernanke Fed effectively kept monetary policy tight for the past five years. There is no other way to say it.


Okay, maybe there is another way to say it. The Bernanke Fed failed to meaningfully address the endogenous fall in the money supply and the decrease in money velocity. The Bernanke Fed could have done an American version of Abenomics, like nominal GDP level targeting, that would have arrested these developments. Instead, it did not and passively allowed total dollar spending to remain depressed. This failure to act is no different than an explicit tightening of monetary policy in terms of damage done to the economy. The only difference is that the public is more aware of the explicit form.


In my view, this is the biggest failure of the Bernanke Fed. It had many opportunities to do it and much encouragement (e.g. Christina Romer's call for Ben Bernanke to have a a Volker Moment). But it was not the only serious failure. There was another big one that preceded it.


This failure is that the Bernanke Fed in 2008 arguably turned what would have been an otherwise mild recession into the Great Recession. Over at Bloomberg opinions, Ramesh Ponnuru recently discussed this failure:



There's another view of the Fed's role in the crisis, though, that has been voiced by economists such as Scott Sumner of Bentley University, David Beckworth of Western Kentucky University and Robert Hetzel of the Richmond Fed. They dissent from the prevailing view that the Fed has been extremely loose since the crisis hit. Instead, they argue that the Fed has actually been extremely tight, and that when its performance during the crisis is measured against the proper yardstick, the central bank emerges as the chief villain of the story.


In the second half of 2008, housing prices, many commodity prices, inflation expectations and stocks all suggested deflation was coming. Fed officials, though, kept talking about backward-looking measures of inflation that made it look high. Their hawkish pronouncements effectively tightened monetary policy by shaping market expectations about its future direction. In August 2008, the Fed minutes explicitly said to expect tighter money. Even after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed the following month, the Fed refused to cut rates and fretted about inflation (which didn't arrive). A few weeks later, the Fed decided to pay banks interest on excess reserves, a contractionary move. Only then did it cut interest rates.



Looking back, the Fed's response from about mid-to-late 2008 was amazingly bad. It had done a decent job over the previous two years as the housing sector was undergoing its own recession, but for some reason lost focus in mid-2008. I believe it got overly worried about headline inflation. By failing to act more aggressively during this time, the Fed allowed monetary conditions to passively tighten. Here is how I previously described this period :



[t]he Fed passively tightened monetary policy starting around mid-2008. This can be seen in the figure below:The figure shows that despite the fall in the growth rate of personal income from construction and real estate services that began in early 2006, personal income in the rest of the economy continued to grow at about 5% a year up through mid-2008. The Fed was able to stabilize nominal incomes overall for almost two years while structural changes were taken place in those sectors closely tied to the housing boom. This is a remarkable accomplishment and is especially clear when comparing construction employment with all other employment:But around mid-2008 the Fed began failing to sufficiently respond to the decline in expected aggregate demand growth. Thus, it began passively tightening around that time as can be seen in the two figures below. The first figure shows the spread between the nominal and real yield on 5-year treasuries. It fell about 170 basis points during the period leading up to the collapse of Lehman in September. This decline in inflation expectations implies a decline in expected aggregate spending and thus a passive tightening of monetary policy. (Even if the spread was reflecting a heightened liquidity premium during this time the implication is the same. A heightened liquidity premium indicates increased demand for liquidity that, in turn, also implies less spending.)The decline in expected aggregated demand began affecting current spending decisions as seen below. Nominal GDP began falling in June 2008.The Fed's failure to stabilize and restore aggregate spending meant it was passively tightening. This failure to act was epitomized by the Fed's decision in September, 2008 to not lower the federal funds rate despite the collapsing economy. This passive tightening is what turned a mild recession into the Great Recession.



Though this Bernanke failure was big, I do view it as less heinous than the failure to do an Abenomics-like program. The 2008 failure happened in real time and would have been difficult for anyone to have nimbly responded these developments. Still, my sense is that more could have done in both cases and this is why I consider them to be the big failures of the Bernanke Fed.


Source: The 2 Big Failures Of The Bernanke Fed

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Week In FX Americas - Loonie Woes Continue Despite Growth


Canada's November's growth number on Friday hit expectations of a +0.2% monthly gain. On the face of it all looked fine, however, the sub-indices happened to push the CAD to a new intraday low. The energy sector reported its usual strength, but both the manufacturing and agriculture categories declined and pushed the loonie through the psychological 1.12 handle for the first time in five years.


Will the monthly growth headline be enough to suppress the idea that Governor Poloz at the Bank of Canada is contemplating a rate cut to promote economic growth? The BoC has made its next monetary choice explicitly data dependent and a growth print like this would suggest a hike rather than an ease in monetary policy. The weak is doing the BoC work, as the underperforming currency will eventually push the country's tepid inflation rate higher.


Certainly not helping policy makers in the relative weak jobs situation. StatsCan reported earlier this month that Canada lost -46k jobs in December, pushing the unemployment rate to +7.2%. New data this week revealed that Canada lost -27.6k jobs in November rather than the reported gain of +21k in their highly coveted 'labor market report'. The new data - based on a census of Canada Revenue Agency data and a survey of 15,000 employers - is considered by economists to be more reliable, but not reported on as heavily as the touted labor report. Despite the reports long-term trends remaining the same will the revision shown up next week and cause more problems for the loonie?


The loonie is closing out the week on the front foot, mostly on the back of month end-demand. Earlier, the CAD had taken a beating from the dollar bulls who used GDP as an excuse to push their way through option barriers at 1.12 and weak stops in the high twenty's. The commodity sensitive currency continues to remain vulnerable, lobbed into the underperforming commodity basket that has been hurt by China's questionable growth potential. Dollar buyers lurk on on all CAD rallies.


Source: Week In FX Americas - Loonie Woes Continue Despite Growth




Learn More







  • Research new investment ideas

  • Reduce risk





Thank you for your interest in Seeking Alpha PRO

We look forward to contacting you shortly for a conversation.







PORTFOLIO













Symbol AlertsPriceChg% Chg



New!


Follow these related stocks



(Click to add stocks to your portfolio)








This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Bonds Are Defying Dire Forecasts

There was no doubt about it in 2013. If the Fed were ever to cut back on its five years of massive QE bond-buying, bond prices would collapse.


It made sense. Of the $85 billion a month of QE, $40 billion was in mortgage-backed securities, and $45 billion in Treasury bonds.


If the Fed cut back its buying, say by $10 billion a month, who would pick up the slack? With such a sharp reduction in demand by a big buyer, bond prices would have to plunge.


Indeed, even when the Fed only hinted in May of last year that it might be getting close to tapering, bonds plummeted in anticipation of the impact it would have on their value.



The financial media reversed from cheerleading and stressing the virtues of bonds and the safe haven role they play in a diversified portfolio, to the notion that bonds are riskier than stocks. By mid-December, investor sentiment for U.S. Treasury bonds had plunged to its most bearish level in seven years.


However, after reaching a low at the end of the year, bonds rallied for four straight weeks in January. The rally began soon after the Fed announced in December that it would begin tapering in January. The bond rally continued this week even as the Fed confirmed it will also taper by $10 billion in February, and probably at that pace in following months.


So who is picking up the slack, not only closing the gap as the Fed buys fewer bonds, but producing enough extra buying to generate a rally?


Apparently they are investors made nervous by the stock market in January, now believing bonds are a safer haven after all.


The stock market's unusual day-to-day volatility alone has been enough to make investors nervous. The Dow experienced a triple-digit close in one direction or the other on nine of the 20 trading days to Friday, on average of every other day. Five were to the downside, the largest of which was minus 318 points. Four were to the upside.


For the month the 30-year T'bond gained 3.9%, while the S&P 500 is down 3.3%.


Will the bond rally have legs beyond the short-term?


Bond action through the month indicates that will almost surely depend on the stock market.


It was almost spooky the way bonds moved opposite to stocks virtually on a day-to-day basis in January, rallying only on days when stocks were down, and pulling back on days when stocks were up on the day.


It is an indication that if the short-term pullback in stocks should morph into something worse, the traditional safe haven appeal of bonds will be a greater influence than concerns that the Fed is not buying bonds at its previous pace.


Given the rate investors were pulling money out of bonds last year, and pouring money into the stock market at a near record pace, there would be ample funds to support a sizable bond rally if those money flows were to reverse to any degree.


It is not an issue at this point, with the stock market probably only in a short-term correction.


However, the action of bonds in January will be important to be aware of and keep in mind if I am right in expecting the stock market to experience serious trouble in the second and third quarter.


Source: Bonds Are Defying Dire Forecasts


Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





The Economic Foundation - Part 2

By Jeffrey P. Snider


The main features of conventional wisdom as it pertains to economic measurement always related to two factors: GDP and employment. As I detailed earlier this week, such a regime developed simply because there was a correlation that seemed to be quite durable. GDP and employment, for the most part, moved largely in concert and making economic judgment rather simple and straightforward.


I have noted at length the obvious divergence in the various measures of employment, particularly the Household Survey's sudden departure in October 2012, but for my purposes here I will stick to the Establishment Survey so as not to introduce any additional variables. Economists right now are convinced that the economy is growing because GDP has moved up above 3% in the past two quarters, and the Establishment Survey averaged nearly 200k jobs per month in 2013.


There is a relatively universal assessment of the economy since the Great Recession that it has been totally substandard, but that has not stopped the process of recalibrating what passes for growth and recovery (indeed, that is largely what is driving it). Where we now hear that 200k jobs per month is indicative of recovery, it was once a level reserved for dangerous slowing. The same can be said of 3% in GDP (though calendar year 2013 GDP was more than a little short of that number).


But even that is not the central theme of this exercise. As I said, even with reduced standards for what passes as growth, these combined figures are taken as positive steps toward the yet-unexperienced full recovery. When compared to previous recoveries, you can see why economists are settling for whatever they can get.


ABOOK Jan 2014 EmpvGDP Recoveries


The trajectory in employment for the current cycle is very similar to the past two recoveries, and nothing like the two that preceded them. The problem for orthodoxy is that such an outcome violates expectations of the plucking model - the recessions in 1974 and 1982 were severe, as such the recoveries were sharp and strong. That is what is expected by the plucking model, thus the shallower recoveries after the minor recessions in 1990 and 2001 (very, very minor) conform.


If the plucking model is at all valid beyond discrete episodes in history, then there has to be some explanation as to why the current track in both employment and GDP follow the shallow approach rather than the rapid. Given the scale of the dislocation during the Great Recession, the recovery thereafter should have been grouped with 1975 and 1983, if not surpassing both, rather than 1991 and 2002.


But that understates the severity of the mismatch. Measured instead from the previous cycle peak rather than trough, this becomes even more obvious.


ABOOK Jan 2014 EmpvGDP PeakPeak


Out of the five most recent recessions, the last in 2008-09 was, by far, the worst. And the economic recovery that occurred thereafter has also been, by far, the worst. That makes a more than compelling case for re-evaluating everything we think we know about recession cycles, including the statistics by which they are judged.


If we plot GDP and employment growth for each individual cycle, it is pretty obvious where this expectation for these economic accounts comes from. GDP and employment in most recessions, at least up to the early 1990's, were very close to each other. There was an obvious correlation that made both mathematical and intuitive sense: if GDP measures economic health at least somewhat accurately, then it stands to reason that our sense of the most important economic variable, employment, would follow closely.


ABOOK Jan 2014 EmpvGDP 1974ABOOK Jan 2014 EmpvGDP 1982ABOOK Jan 2014 EmpvGDP 1990


From the comparisons above, that correlation holds without much divergence. GDP and employment appear very thoroughly connected, providing the basis for expectations that GDP is somewhat of a reliable indicator of economic progression.


Something drastic changed with the "cycle" after the 2001 recession, however. Further, it continues into this current "recovery" period.


ABOOK Jan 2014 EmpvGDP 2001ABOOK Jan 2014 EmpvGDP 2008


I have used real GDP as the primary measure here, which, I believe, plays a principal role in this divergence. From these five analyzed results it would seem pretty clear that either employment growth was understated during the housing bubble and most recently, or that GDP has been overstated.


Given the lack of wage and earned income growth in the past decade (nearly two) it seems far more plausible for the latter than the former. That would further suggest that perhaps there is a problem with the inflation calculation part of this discrepancy. To get the GDP trajectory to converge upon employment would only require an addition to the estimates of inflation since 2000 (and likely back into the late 1990's).


That also conforms to what we know about the financial and dollar system in each of these periods. The latter two periods are concurrent with heavy intervention by central banking into the financial system. Both cases are marked with the obvious asset inflation which is fully ignored by the orthodox calculations. It is simply assumed as irrelevant to real economic behavior, but in fact there are innumerable ways in which asset inflation can invade the real economy, depressing activity in much the same manner as consumer inflation. There are changes in behavior and expectations that are not measured by current statistics that play a clear role as a suppressant.


The most readily apparent is corporate preferences toward financial investment rather than productive. The emergence of the stock repurchase mania was a relatively new phenomena taking on gigantic proportions in the years after the dot-com bust (which is itself a proximate cause, as corporate managers were very much interested in getting their share prices up, and then keeping them there as prices went higher and higher). It has only continued after the Great Recession.


There are other such potential depressants related to asset inflation that can be cataloged, like the appeal to a weaker dollar that feeds the desire of businesses to offshore production and the interruption of innovation as resources are diverted toward the financial, but share repurchasing is the most direct in its impacts on employment coming from asset inflation.


Because asset inflation is not incorporated into the measure of GDP, in periods where it is most assertive is exactly where we find this dichotomy between employment and GDP. Modern, orthodox economics posits that such a calculation is near impossible, since it is extremely difficult, so they say, to separate organic growth from intrusive, so it is simply ignored. And as it went unheeded there developed this breakdown in what was a very strong correlation between economic estimates.


The immediate implication is that GDP, with a more inclusive estimate of inflation and all of its nefarious impacts, is being overstated. I don't think that should be controversial at all, considering the disaster in employment and jobs that has now extended six years from the last cycle peak. That is unprecedented (at least since the Great Depression, and what wonderful correlations and similarities to that period) and, again, should create more reserved judgment about the precision and even usefulness of these measures.


Finally, if GDP is perhaps overstated by way of comparison with the Establishment Survey, then it is well overstated when using the Household Survey as an employment proxy, especially since June of last year. In either case, the health of the economy is in far more doubt than if these figures were more aligned like their historical predecessors. It is problematic enough to proclaim recovery via GDP and employment at reduced rates and standards when they actually agree; it is quite something else when they do not.


Source: The Economic Foundation - Part 2

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.





Essex Property Trust Management Discusses Q4 2013 Results - Earnings Call Transcript


Executives


Barb Pak


Michael J. Schall - Chief Executive Officer, President, Director, Member of Executive Committee and Member of Pricing Committee


Erik J. Alexander - Senior Vice President of Property Operations


Michael T. Dance - Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Executive Vice President


John D. Eudy - Executive Vice President of Development


Analysts


David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division


Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division


Richard C. Anderson - BMO Capital Markets U.S.


Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division


Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division


Paula J. Poskon - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division


David Harris - Imperial Capital, LLC, Research Division


Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division


David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division


Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division




Essex Property Trust (ESS) Q4 2013 Earnings Call January 31, 2014 1:00 PM ET


Operator


Greetings, and welcome to the Essex Property Trust Fourth Quarter 2013 Financial Results and 2014 Guidance Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded.


It is now my pleasure to introduce your host Barb Pak, Director of Investor Relations. Thank you. You may now begin.


Barb Pak


Thank you, and welcome to our fourth quarter earnings conference Call. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that certain matters discussed in this conference call contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements are subject to several assumptions, risks and uncertainties. The company assumes no obligation to update or supplement these statements that become untrue because of subsequent events. Please refer to the forward-looking statements section of the earnings release issued yesterday. Today, management will be making some prepared comments related to the post merger of assets of BRE properties.


At the advice of counsel, management will not be taking questions related to the proposed merger, given that the merger is subject to approval of both Essex and BREs stockholders. Comments related to possible financing sources such as property sales and joint ventures are in a preliminary stage, and we cannot assure you that they will be consummated. As attached file, a joint proxy statement/prospectus with regards to the proposed merger with the SEC on January 29. We refer investors to the information inventory proxy statement, regarding the merger and related transactions, and then other relevant information that we may file with the SEC.


The question-and-answer session at the end of the call will be limited to matters related to the fourth quarter earnings results, and the 2014 guidance, assumptions and outlook provided for Essex on a standalone basis.


I'll now turn the call over to our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mike Schall.


Michael J. Schall


Thank you, Barb. I would like to start by welcoming you to our fourth quarter earnings call. Mike Dance and Erik Alexander will follow me with comments. John Eudy and John Burkart are available for Q&A. I'll cover the following 2 topics on the call: Fourth quarter and annual results and our outlook for 2014; and secondly, the update on the merger integration process.


So under the first topic: Yesterday, we were pleased to report continued strong operating results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 2013. The core FFO per share result for 2013, represents a 11% growth from the prior year and is $0.05 per share above the midpoint of the initial 2013 guidance range. In the three-year period from 2010 -- from the 2010 recessionary trough, we've grown core FFO per share by 51%. We ended 2013 with 6.3% same-property revenue growth near the high-end of the initial guidance range, lead by our Northern California region. Southern California was the only region that performed below the midpoint of our original 2013 revenue guidance range missing by 15 basis points.


With respect to Southern California, our expectation of slow but steady improvement in revenue growth proved accurate in 2013, as each of the four quarters generated slightly higher sequential growth, with Q4 achieving a respectable 4.7% revenue growth rate.


Looking back over the past several years, however, Southern California has fallen short of our high expectation for rental revenue. With respect to job growth, 2013 remains strong. And at 2.1% in our target markets was just above our initial forecast, with each MFA, except Oakland and Los Angeles, beating our estimate.


Turning to 2014. Our overall market outlook is reflected on Page S16 of the supplement and is based on U.S. job growth of 1.8% and 2.8% U.S. GDP growth. Both of which are near the middle of the range estimated by our economics data vendors. This information is materially consistent with our 3-year outlook at our Investor Day presentation in November. Our 2014 revenue guidance is very similar to our original 2013 estimates. Overall, the midpoint of our revenue guidance range of 5.6% is only 15 basis points below the comparable estimate for 2013. And each of our 3 primary regions are assumed to generate rental growth within 50 basis points of the comparable 2013 estimate.


Overall, 2014 supply is estimated to be -- multifamily supply is estimated to be 1.1% of stock, up from our estimate of 0.8% for 2013. The higher level of supply in 2014 is offset by higher job growth, consistent with an improved U.S. economy, leading us to expect that the overall demand-supply relationship remains favorable to landlords.


Apartment demand continues to be anchored by job growth, demographic factors and limited to an expensive alternative to rental housing. Medium priced homes are expensive on the West Coast with median prices ranging from $389,000 in King County, Washington and $813,000 in San Francisco County. In addition, wholesale housing values are increasing substantially faster than apartment rents, making apartments a more affordable -- making apartments more affordable relative to homes.


We believe that Southern California will continue to report good job growth and solid results. The dilemma of Southern California jobs versus rent growth is depicted in an AXIOMetrics chart for Los Angeles, and we've reproduced with permission as Page S17 of the supplement. While we believe that Southern California has the potential for higher rental growth, we don't see the catalyst for that to incur in 2014, and thus, it assumes the continuation of solid, but relatively flat revenue growth rates.


We completed approximately $462 million in acquisitions in 2013, down from nearly $800,000 2012. Overall, we expect to acquire approximately $400 million again in 2014, with emphasis on well located B property, and on Southern California, but adds in a way that maximizes accretion. We have 11 development communities that are under construction or in the initial leasing phase. Going forward, we will continue to be selective for new apartment development opportunities. There are many development deals being discussed and most of the merchant builders need equity to satisfy lender requirements.


Other impediments to new apartment construction include concerns about the economy, future rent growth expectations, construction cost increases and the need for concessions from the reluctant local governments. With this in mind, we continue to believe that new apartment deliveries will peak in late 2014 to early 2015, in Seattle and in Northern California.


Now to my second topic, the merger integration update. Since signing the agreement to merge Essex and BRE on December 19, 2013, both companies have worked with great focus and effort to make the transition as smooth as possible. Earlier this week, we filed Form S4 with the SEC, in connection with the proposed merger and necessary shareholder bolster from both Essex and BRE shareholders. If the process proceeds without delay, we could close the merger in March. We have enjoyed working with Coney Moore [ph] and her team as we seek our common objective of forming a primitive West Coast apartment REITs.


We appreciate the incredible effort of both the Essex and BRE employees in realizing this vision and offer them our continued thanks. Merger integration planning remains in full swing and significant progress has been made. The merger agreement provides for a cash component of $12.33 per BRE share, of roughly $1 billion. The financing of the cash component is supported by $1 billion financing commitment from UBS and Citigroup, which can be relied upon if our preferred funding sources, which are a combination of institutional joint ventures, property sales and borrowings does not occur.


We currently have nonbinding term sheets related to the formation of institutional joint ventures, involving properties valued at -- between $800 million and $900 million. In addition, we believe that $100 million to $200 million in property sales could occur before or shortly after the merger, and that most of the cash required to close the merger can be generated by these activities. We realized that the market desires greater visibility into our long-term expectations for the merger, as asked for additional information. As noted on the call following the announcement of the merger, we cannot provide the details of our underwriting and assumption, as advised by our attorneys. We refer everyone to the investor presentation, previously filed with the SEC and posted on our website, and to the Form S4 recently filed for details of the transaction.


We recognize the importance of articulating our vision with respect to the merger. Recall from the conference call and answering the merger that are baseline financial assumptions where that the merger would be NAV neutral, accretive to core FFO in the range of $0.05 to $0.08 per share in the year following the merger closing, and that the annual synergies will approximately will impact of Prop. 13.


In the Q&A, we noted that the vast majorities of the assumed synergies are on the expense side of which property and corporate level expense reductions were roughly similar amounts. We continue to believe these assumptions are achievable. Our key question is what opportunities are available over and above the baseline scenario outlined above.


As previously noted, we are in the midst of evaluating these opportunities, and so conclusions have not been reached. However, we like to share with you our list of priorities related to synergies and efficiencies to be pursued following merger confirmation as follows:


First, we will reconcile pricing philosophies, which are materially different despite our geographic and portfolio similarities. Based on that reconciliation, we will adopt one company-wide standard best practice to include the renewal process, targeted turnover rates and costs, traffic and traffic sources, amenity charges and occupancy/availability ranges.


Second, we will look for opportunities to improve the financial structure of the combined companies from the perspective of risk, reward, cost to capital and core FFO accretion. This could, for example, involve new institutional co-investment relationships for development communities, and possibly, existing properties.


Third, we will implement best practices identified during the merger integration process. Detailed recommendations and opportunities have been compiled as we evaluate each functional area to be the basis for action plans. For example, we expect to implement BRE's RUBS reimbursement methodology, website and procurement practices at Essex communities. Similarly, we expect to implement Essex's approach to Craigslist promotion, resource management, redevelopment and asset management plans at BRE communities.


Fourth, we will use our larger footprint and community proximity to negotiate lower cost relationships with vendors, create on-site operating savings and revenue management synergies.


And fifth, we will kickoff a major human resource initiative focused on creating career path that will develop talent from within the company, improve hiring practices, provide greater regional coordination staff and related topics. We believe that these areas will significantly improve the overall efficiency and results of the combined entity.


That concludes my comments. Thank you for joining in the call today. I'll now turn the call over to Erik.


Erik J. Alexander


Thank you, Mike. The strong fourth quarter in operations helped Essex cap off another good year and set us up for continued growth in 2014. The Bay Area in Seattle continued to report strong economic growth, which resulted in healthy demand throughout the period. Leasing activity met or exceeded expectations in all of our markets, highlighted by strong renewal activity, improving occupancy and better than expected schedule of rent growth. For the quarter, renewal rates grew at 5.5% over expiring rates, while January renewals improved to 6%.


With higher expiring rate comps ahead, February and March renewals are expected to achieve rent growth around 5.5% for the portfolio. Given our low availability and improving demand, we should see strong, sustainable rent growth for new lease activity in all markets.


Turnover remained low and within expectations during the quarter. But we did see a seasonal pickup in move outs due to home purchases during the quarter as this metric hit 12.2%. However, this is consistent with the last 2 years. Solid fundamentals helped sequential scheduled rent growth improve, and we believe our tempered focus on occupancy during the period allowed us to realize schedule rent growth double that of December 2012.


We are off to a good start in the new year and scheduled rent in January outpaced December's growth and occupancy stands at 96.6% with a 5.4% net availability for all stabilized assets. Activity at our lease-up projects, Epic at San Jose and Connolly Station at Dublin, reflects strong market conditions. Both projects are leasing ahead of expectations and are expected to be stabilized in September and March respectively.


Leasing activity at the new developments in the broader market also demonstrates strong demand. And the average monthly absorption for all projects of North San Jose was 38 units per month for 2013.


Next quarter, I will comment on Avery, Dylan, Huxley and Mosso, as we begin pre-leasing activities for all 4 projects over the next several weeks. And I'll share some highlights from each region beginning with Seattle. While new buildings continue to come to market in the region, we believe that slower absorption and moderating rents are more a function of seasonality than too much supply. Deliveries are largely concentrated downtown and would remain vigilant in our strategy to maximize revenues by meeting market expectations and proactively managing lease explorations. Economic rents on the east side, the north end and the south end of Seattle, were the majority of our portfolio is located, held up better than downtown during the fourth quarter, and we expect these submarkets to outperform the downtown in 2014.


Employment growth in the region improved to a year-over-year rate of 3% in December with unemployment below 5%. The most important employment news of the quarter was the labor resolution between the Machinist and Boeing that the allow the world's largest airplane manufacturers to keep 20,000 direct and indirect jobs in Seattle working on the 777 Dreamliners for the next decade.


Office absorption moderated the fourth quarter with 313,000 square feet lease, but 2.9% of total stock was leased for the full year. Office vacancy remained low and deal flow continues to be brisk, including Amazon's purchase via another significant property in Downtown.


Turning to Northern California. With the year-over-year job growth of 3.4% in San Jose, and 2.2% for the broader regions, the Bay Area continues to lead the way for Essex, with the highest growth in rental rates and revenue for the portfolio. Office leasing and development continues to be strong in virtually all parts of the Bay Area with another 1.5 million square feet absorbed during the quarter. Additionally, other significant Bellevue's projects like Apple's 2.8 million square foot headquarters, and Netflix expansion began construction during the quarter.


Investment and transportation and infrastructure also continues to grow. The new Eastern span at the Bay Bridge and the fourth floor of the Colvaca tunnel opened in the latter part of 2013. Barge open airport connector is set to open later this year and the first phase of the Transbay Terminal remains on schedule to open in 2017.


All of these projects and others will continue to help few economic growth in the Bay Area. Finally, in Southern California. Southern California continues to grow at a more moderate pace compared to Seattle and the Bay Area, with Orange County and Ventura have shown signs of accelerating. All overall job growth in Los Angeles was 1.2% during December. Orange County job growth was 2.4% and Ventura hit 2%. Orange County bows the lowest unemployment in Southern California at 5.2%, but Los Angeles has dropped below 9% for the first time since November 2008.


Encouraging news is that the 1.4% year-over-year decline in employment in Los Angeles -- unemployment in Los Angeles was due to employment growth and not shrinkage in labor force. The impact of the military in San Diego essentially remains unchanged with the resident exposure hovering around 13%. However, with federal funds flowing again, there has been an increase in shipyard activity and military contract work.


Commercial leasing activity in the region was positive during the fourth quarter with another 850,000 square feet absorbed mostly in Los Angeles. Orange County was flat, however, Hyundai and Pemco delivered their headquarter facilities during the period. So overall, economic and rental market conditions remain strong across the portfolio, and a solid December and January give us good reason to be confident about 2014. Thank you for your time, and I'll now turn the call over to Mike Dance.


Michael T. Dance


Thanks, Erik. Today, I will provide some color to the assumptions behind our 2014 guidance. Then provide a brief update on the proposed merger with BRE. For more details on our guidance, assumptions, please read Page 6 of the press release. And on S-14 of the supplemental package, we have provided a detailed roadmap, how these assumptions are expected to impact our 2014 financial results. The assumptions and projections are for Essex on a stand-alone basis and exclude any impact from the proposed BRE transaction and the merger-related costs associated with the deal.


For 2014, we expect consolidated same-property net operating income to grow by 6.5% at the mid point, driven by a 5.6% increase in same-property revenues. The 2014 same-property portfolio will increase by over 2,000 apartment homes and will exclude the 6 properties that were acquired in 2013 and those undergoing major redevelopments. We expect our same-property operating expenses to increase 3.5% of the midpoint. The biggest factor driving our expense growth is higher property taxes. Our budget assumes property tax increases by $3.7 million or 7%. This tax increase relates to higher assessed values in Seattle, which are 18% higher than last year's assessed value.


In California, we still had favorable Prop 8 adjustments in 2013, totaling $1.2 million in tax savings. And we expect $600,000 of additional California property taxes in the second half of 2014, as a result of losing these Prop 8 savings on July 1. The controllable expenses for the same-property portfolio are expected to grow by less than 2%.


Now, I'll provide an update on the proposed BRE merger. Assuming the merger closes in March, we expect to benefit from the operating efficiencies of adopting the best practices that Mike outlined in his prepared remarks after a six-month integration period. The operating platform accretion will begin to add accretion to our 2014 core FFO guidance in Q4, and continuing into 2015.


In connection with our financing plans for the cash components of the proposed merger, we expanded our unsecured credit facility from $600 million to $1 billion at the end of January, and added an important feature pursuant to which we have the flexibility to expand to $1.5 billion. We reduced the pricing on the expanded facility by 12.5 basis points to 95 basis points of the LIBOR.


In addition, we renegotiated the pricing on our $350 million term loan reducing the spread over LIBOR by 15 basis points. We believe, this demonstrates some of the initial costs of capital advantages we can achieve with the larger platform.


At the closing of the merger, the net debt-to-EBITDA of the combined company will increase by one turn as the result of creating joint venture which will form the cash component of the deal. At this time, we do not expect to use the $1 billion bridge loan to close the merger. We expect the debt-to-EBITDA ratio will return to approximately 7x in the first half of 2015 to grow the net operating income and stabilizing the development pipelines for both companies. As a result, after the merger, we will maintain the strength of our balance sheet and will be opportunistic when considering alternative sources of capital, including asset sales, additional joint ventures, unsecured debt and common equity to finance the buildout of the development pipeline.


As disclosed in our press release, our Board of Directors declared a first quarter dividend of $1.21 per share to shareholders of record on March 14. The timing of the first quarter dividend is coordinated with BRE's first quarter dividend pursuant to the merger agreement. The board will reveal any increase to the annual dividend during its February board meeting, and an increase if any approved by the board will be effective for the second quarter dividend payment.


I'll now turn the call over to the operator for questions.




Question-and-Answer Session


Operator


[Operator Instructions] Our first question is coming from the line of David Toti with Cantor Firzgerald.


David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division


I just have -- those are pre-thought [ph]. I just have one question with regard to kind of the company's philosophy on dispositions, and the forecast for the year looked relatively light compared to volumes that some of your peers have been disclosing of. And if we think about your capital needs broadly and where we are in the pricing cycle on apartment assets, especially in your markets, why not dispose of -- what's the rationale for keeping that relatively limited?


Michael J. Schall


Hi, David. It's Mike Schall. The main rationale is just trying to find the right source for putting capital to work. We tend to be very focused in terms of what we buy or what we build. Therefore, we don't have a large portfolio of assets that we want to dispose of, is a general statement. And so we're looking for arbitrage. We're looking for, if we sell these assets, what we do with the money, what's the best source of funding the development pipeline and a variety of things. And we will be become more aggressive at selling assets when that becomes the most favorable source of capital to fund other future activities.


David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division


So actually, it's sounds like the cost of that capital is still too high in your mind?


Michael J. Schall


Exactly.


David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division


Okay. And then I just have one follow-up question for -- maybe, for Erik, and I might have missed this. What's the occupancy assumption embedded in the revenue forecast for the year?


Erik J. Alexander


Hi, David. This is Erik. It's a range across the portfolio similar to what we experienced in 2013. So I would say, then that goes from the high 95s to the mid 96.5 depending on the submarket.


David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division


So am I hearing sort of flattish for the year?


Erik J. Alexander


Yes.


David Toti - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division


In aggregate. Okay.


Operator


The next question is coming from the line of Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O'Neill.


Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division


First question is as you guys look at the -- as you guys laid out the strategy for this year in integrating BRE, it seems like the core business is sort of business as usual. There is a lot of activity, a lot of investment activity in such. Do you feel like what we're going to see on the course. What we would normally see from core Essex or have you guys sort of -- is your intention to dial it back to make sure that more of the resources are focused on the integration. Just and the angle that we are coming at is over the past year or 2, we've seen 1 or 2 situations of company mergers where a part of the operation was dropped as a company acquired or integrated various platforms. So just want to get your take on that.


Michael J. Schall


Alex, it's Mike Schall. Certainly, we expect to continue with business as usual throughout our portfolio. So we don't expect a drop off. Obviously, we haven't been through this process before. And so there's a certain amount of uncertainity there. But all of us are confident that we will be able to work together to basically continue the business as it's right now. I think, 1 key factor here is that we are so similar as to geography, as to staffing ratios, as to a lot of the systems and processes that I think it's going to perhaps make this a little bit easier to integrate relative to some of other transactions you are referring to.


Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division


Okay. And the second question is in Southern California, some of the other parts [ph] that we heard from where more bullish on Southern California than previously throughout last year. You guys obviously spoke about Orange County inventory picking up. Has something occurred more recently in the past few months that people are a little more positive on Southern California? Or it's pretty much consistent with what you guys expected, but the fact that it's now sort of seeming to pickup is just a positive refreshment that everyone is focused on?


Erik J. Alexander


Alex, this is Erik. I think there has been some pickup in Southern California in areas, and I didn't comment on San Diego. But we've seen some improvements there as well and spots in Los Angeles. I think it's -- we've always done is tie this to what our economic forecast is, the jobs picture and so, until we see that sustain in the meaningful way. I think it's hard to be too bullish, we have seen that before where we have had [ph] -- we think that has taken off and then sort of find up. So we will see, but right now, we're feeling pretty good.


Alexander David Goldfarb - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division


So what you've described is sort of broad-based throughout the region. It's not just 1 industry or 1 geography. I mean, it seems pretty positive that it should continue, right? Or if you feel that there is something that could be relative?


Erik J. Alexander


That's right. I think it's our view -- across Southern California is positive.


Operator


Our next question is coming from the line of Richard Anderson from BMO Capital Markets.


Richard C. Anderson - BMO Capital Markets U.S.


So I don't know to what degree you can respond, but I wish to ask and you could say, "shut up", if you want, but when you kind of started this process and when it became known to everybody in November, December timeframe, a lot of moving -- lot of things were going on at that time and [indiscernible] with all the moving parts inside and outside of the transaction. But when you look at it now, having couple of months under your belt, can you say if the merger analysis looks even better to you now or maybe about the same or you're feeling more -- even more confident about the opportunity here?


Michael T. Dance


Hi, Rich. It's Mike. I think I need to steer clear of that question. I was expecting that some one would ask hypothetical, just general merger related questions, how do we look at things, et cetera, et cetera, which we -- maybe can center down that road, but I think anything is related to this merger, we've been told by our attorneys that we are not allowed to discuss...


Richard C. Anderson - BMO Capital Markets U.S.


My apologize, I won't take it any further then. I guess, maybe, if you could, when you look at the kind of the 3 markets, is there anything specific about Essex or BRE that is a standout in Northern California, Southern California or Seattle, or is it like you said so similar that it's just kind of doubling down on those 3 areas?


Michael J. Schall


Once again it's Mike Schall commenting. I think it's very similar. We made that comment before, that more than half of BRE's communities are located within 2 miles of an Essex community. And so we think that there are a number of good positive things that can happen as a result of that, which I outlined on my comments.


Richard C. Anderson - BMO Capital Markets U.S.


Okay, and then when you think about that issue about being so close to one another, the assets, how do you manage situations where 1 asset wants to do well from a bonus comp perspective and assume that it's better to have this kind of synergy situation, but there could also be some inciting amongst folks, do you -- how do you manage that process, so that it actually is a win-win for everybody? In other words, if one asset is doing well and the other...


Michael J. Schall


Richard, it's tough for me to talk about any Essex/BRE type of activity because again our advice is that if it is in the S-4, it's important to put it in the S-4 and everything in the S-4, basically represents the balance of which we can talk about. So if you want to talk more generically, just talk more generically about the competition in the marketplace between us and someone else.


Richard C. Anderson - BMO Capital Markets U.S.


Okay, then let's take it there. I don't mean to push too hard on this. I just wanted to see if there could be anything about, a general view about how the 2 companies would look once it's all set and done, but...


Michael J. Schall


Okay, let me take a step back because I think, the point -- one of the points in my prepared remarks was intended to address this, that every competitor within the marketplace has a different view of the world. The price optimizer software is a generic statement, approaches it in a number of ways, but there's 100 switches or 1000 switches within that, that allows you to customize how you look at things. Different companies pursue marketing in a variety of different ways, and a lot of that is becoming much more sophisticated over time. I think back of 20 years ago when it was a moment of top that we're operating a lot of these buildings. So it is really very sophisticated set of circumstances now. So everyone is different. And really what our objective is, and I think that the -- yes, this is both generic and very real in the marketplace, is to try to find the right balance of different marketing programs. I know that we excel, for example, at Craig's list. Others excel at other things. Mobile is becoming more important as time goes on and the technology surrounding the web at drawing traffic through the web is changing dramatically. And so our view is that you need to have some scale here to make the investments you need to make, in order to maximize that marketing effort and the traffic to your buildings. So going back to the original premise, if you are larger organization and you can make the right investment, I think you can draw traffic to some of the smaller organizations that can't afford to make the investments might have. And I think that the other piece of this is what impact does that have on future investments. While our hope here is that the -- on the merger related call, I talked about a 30 basis points sort of average accretion number over our cost of funds, while the hope is that if we can drive down our cost that -- between the cost reduction and cost to capital reductions that we can be more competitive with respect to transactions and actually generate more accretion from the investments that we make going forward. So that's the big picture philosophy.


Richard C. Anderson - BMO Capital Markets U.S.


That's perfect. And then just quickly on the joint venture, would you say, I think you probably said this at some place, but would you say that the nature of the assets might be on the older, kind of, redevelopment variety or core or some combination?


Michael J. Schall


I can't say, how do I answer this. You may want to look at some of the 8-K filings that the BRE has made, and that will give you some idea.


Operator


The next question is coming from the line of Omotayo Okusanya with Jefferies.


Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division


I just wanted to narrow in on Seattle for a little bit, again, I think your assets -- BRE's assets having slightly different market in Seattle, I'm just kind of giving you comments about supply in Downtown, I was just kind of curious how your kind of thinking about both portfolios and synergies between both going forward, especially in that market?


Michael J. Schall


Hi Omo. It's Mike Schall. Actually, we think that we are very similarly located in Seattle as well. I would agree with you that the Downtown has most of the development, and therefore, it has most of the supply coming onto the market, and it will be most affected by that new supply. So in another words, our belief is that the east side and the area surrounding Seattle, the suburban markets will outperform for the next couple of years in the Downtown. Overall, I think that everything I said earlier about the physical locations, they are very similar. We have significant exposure in the Downtown urban market. We also have a significant exposure in the suburban markets. We don't view it as much different.


Omotayo T. Okusanya - Jefferies LLC, Research Division


I was a little impressed that BRE had a little bit more Downtown exposure, but I might be wrong?


Michael J. Schall


Yes, maybe a little bit more, but again, looking at the broader portfolios, we think they are pretty similar.


Operator


[Operator Instructions] Our next question is coming from the line of Michael Salinsky with RBC Capital Markets.


Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division


Just in the guidance for '14, can you talk about what's your development assumption in CapEx, assumption with regard to '14? And also does that change materially with BRE introduced, I'm not asking for specific guidance, but is there -- does that BRE make a significant impact on that and that into the portfolio?


Michael T. Dance


Very slightly, but not much. This is Mike Dance. Hi, Mike. Good question on the CapEx. They are spending very similar amounts for dollar. So I don't -- of the recurring CapEx, I don't see that changing. And then on a combined basis, the timing of it is a little bit different. Some of their properties are in front of ours and some are behind. So we're not seeing a major change in our results as -- from bringing that on. They do some things like straight lining concessions. We'll probably adopt that accounting policy, that's GAAP. So there'll be things like that, that -- we look at accounting practices about companies and pick the practices that are mostly corporate or aligned to GAAP as a part of this process.


Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division


Okay, just a clarification there. So you are talking about changing accounting policies to move to a straight lining as opposed to expensing of concessions upfront, do that -- did I hear that correctly?


Michael T. Dance


Yes, that's correct. So we'll start adopting, that's GAAP, we have that on our list of things that we monitor from a GAAP versus a non-GAAP compliance standpoint. So that is something that we're likely to adopt. So as part of the process as Mike reviewed, we're also going to be reviewing best practices in accounting policies.


Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division


Okay. That was -- I also asked about the development strategy, I don't think you addressed that for '14, it's on the dock?


John D. Eudy


I didn't understand the question. This is John Eudy, Mike. For 2014, right now, what you see in the S-9 is, is it. We don't have anything anticipated beyond it. And their portfolio as well is possible -- a couple of other deals that I don't want to get into. We quick start, but we can't comment at this time.


Michael J. Salinsky - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division


Okay. Fair enough. Just Mike, as my follow-up question is right on the [indiscernible] looking at raising JV capital, any change in IRR targets from your joint venture partners at this point?


Michael J. Schall


Mike, this is Mike Schall again. No, I don't think so. In fact, I think, cap rates for the most part have remained within a pretty narrow band over the last year. And I'd say that maybe there is -- there are fewer institutions that maybe they were a year ago that are interested in JV activity, but I don't think the thresholds have changed materially.


Operator


Our next question is coming from the line of Brian Bennett with Zelman & Associates.


Unknown Analyst


Just want to chill down just on the acquisitions of $300 million to $400 million that you mentioned in the release. In turn, I think last call you had talked about some opportunities with developers in your regions for potential acquisitions, I was wondering how that was tracking, what other more deals kind of like Slater 116 in pipeline?


Michael J. Schall


Brian, this is Mike Schall. There are deals that are similar to that. I'm not sure that those will be the ones that we are able to do, but sure, I mentioned in my prepared remarks that we will have a Southern California bias this year, and we will try to pick the best funny mechanism for the deal, but I would say, if anything, it's a Southern California focus and we do run across transactions that we recently developed by someone and they need to be -- they need liquidity and it becomes a great opportunity for us. And in fact, in San Diego, we announced the acquisition of Domain, which is exactly a brand new property condo-mapped solid market and a price that we thought was attractive to us. So we continue to see that. I'm not sure how much of that will be -- will represent our $400 million plus or minus in acquisitions this year. I hope it's a lot.


Unknown Analyst


And then in terms of the disposition assets that you might be targeting. Just how does it look in terms of your expectations for NOI growth for those assets and the potential pricing that you gain transaction market today versus where your stock is trading, given, I guess, that you sold some stocks around 162 last quarter?


Michael T. Dance


I'm sorry, could you repeat one more time, Brian, sorry about that.


Unknown Analyst


Sure. So I was just wondering how you weighted the acquisition opportunities versus the cost of capital, specifically the assets that you have, potentially lined up for dispositions, how do they look on an NOI growth basis and potential cap reach it could get for those assets versus where your stock is trading at today?


Michael T. Dance


Yes, in terms of where the stock is trading at today, we believe that the co-investment joint venture capital is more attractive. And so we would gravitate there as opposed to issuing more stock and you're right, the stock issuances were at a higher price, which -- that's what we're trying to do. We believe that tracking the different sources of capital, which would include dispositions, JV capital or on balance sheet capital, is sort of fundamental to making money in the business, and those relationships are constantly changing. And so our model for how to acquire is constantly changing depending upon those variables.


Unknown Analyst


Got. And then last question. I'm not sure, if you'll be able to address this, but in the S-4 filing, I guess, the payout estimates that you guys had, had of BRE now on 2015 basis, and you look fairly bullish, and I guess, basically, I'm more curious what that kind of a corporate is for your overall view for Southern California in 2015 and what sort of acceleration you guys are thinking about right now. It's, obviously, early, but it looks like you do have some sort of view on the acceleration in these markets?


Michael J. Schall


Again, this is Mike Schall commenting. Our belief is, if you look at the relative relationships from this point going forward, the Southern California is still attractive. If you look at the cost per unit, their relationship between rents in those marketplaces versus the pretty incredible rents that we've seen in the north, we think that there will be an opportunity over the next couple of years to -- for Southern California to do better. We think that Northern California and Seattle, depending on what happens with the tech world. There will be some deceleration and -- but we also recognized that if tech continues to be as robust as it has been, it still -- you still don't want to discount the possibility that if the boom in Northern California and Seattle will continue for several more years. So we're trying to play the best of both worlds. Our overall belief is from a -- just a pure value basis, Southern California represents a better value. And therefore, we will likely focus more of our acquisition timing effort and ultimately development on Southern California, all things being equal.


Operator


[Operator Instructions] Our next question is coming from the line of Paula Poskon with Robert W. Baird.


Paula J. Poskon - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division


Just one question on a totally separate topic. The national press, obviously, has been covering the severe weather in various parts of the country, including the severe drought that you all are experiencing out there. Is that causing you to manage the properties differently or even, perhaps, dictating or adjusting how you think about where to invest in certain submarkets or greater markets?


Erik J. Alexander


Hi, Paula. This is Erik. I don't know that it changes the way that we manage, other than using the tools that we have developed through resource management, which focuses on consumption. So where we have opportunities, reduced irrigation, for example, we're going to continue to do that. Something like a drought, if there were things put in place that made it more difficult to use or access water, or it costs more, maybe we'll reduce some improvements, capital improvements, consistent with what we've done before. As to investment, I don't think it plays a role in what we are looking at.


Operator


Our next question is coming from the line of David Harris with Imperial Capital.


David Harris - Imperial Capital, LLC, Research Division


Any view or any update on where we stand with the rent control across California?


Michael J. Schall


Hi, David. It's Mike Schall commenting on this. Really, it's been quiet on the rent control front. And we've done, as I've reported in the past, some things to work with some of the local government entities, the California Apartment Association and a variety of other groups, to try to mediate issues that may come up from time to time. So all is quiet on the rent control front at this point.


David Harris - Imperial Capital, LLC, Research Division


Yes, just to put a detail on that. Is that been more of an issue historically in Northern California than Southern California?


Michael J. Schall


No, I would say that it's an issue everywhere in California. Where ever rents are high and housing values are high, and therefore, choice of housing with respect to housing is limited, I think, the political environment is to be -- something that we should be concerned about.


David Harris - Imperial Capital, LLC, Research Division


And then this is a question related to opportunity cost and your time around the BRE transaction. My question is this, is that how many times, if at all, have you said, "Come back and see me in 2 or 3 months time" to your development or redevelopment colleagues?


Michael J. Schall


You mean the one sitting right across to me, Mr Eudy, for example?


David Harris - Imperial Capital, LLC, Research Division


Yes. I mean, can you... I mean, I guess, another way of asking the question is, is how much can you continue to run business as usual whilst you're putting all the time and effort you are into moving forward with the BRE merger?


Michael J. Schall


Actually, I will answer that. This is Mike Schall again. We've actually been able to continue, I think, business as usual on the investment side reasonably well to this period of time. I know that we, even though we are -- our 2014 starts will be limited, we have been active in terms of looking at future development sites. And in fact, during the last couple of months, we have committed to pretty significant development on the Peninsula. So we have not abandoned our existing external activities at all from my perspective. Practically speaking, we're all working a lot harder and a lot... how I can give you that? But I think that we're -- yes, we're pretty excited about the opportunities both -- because this gives us a variety of other portfolio management opportunities, but at the same time, I think with can still remain active in the marketplaces looking at new opportunities. So I don't think it's been a big cost at this point.


Operator


Our next question is coming from the line of Haendel St. Juste with Morgan Stanley.


Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division


So, Erik, I guess for you. Can you talk a bit more about your outlook for San Diego? The market where we've seen, I guess, few head picks there in recent years, and any compare/contrast comments that you can drive for San Diego versus Orange County, and maybe LA too?


Erik J. Alexander


Hi, Haendel. I wouldn't be at all shocked if there are head picks again in San Diego. I think I've ranked the -- those areas in Southern California before about expectations for growth in San Diego with either third or fourth in the comparison. I still hike Orange County and Los Angeles the best ventures, seems to be more stable and growing as of late. We've had good results in the last couple of months in San Diego. But we're going to need continued job growth there that is helpful to maintaining occupancies and lowering availability and driving price. So again, we like San Diego. We've seen some good months. But I'm going to wait to see some more months before I get too excited.


Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division


Fair enough. One more. As -- A property assets tend to underperform these later in the cycle. So I mean, you've seen -- supported in recent AXIO data. So if you look at your portfolio in the revenue growth outlook for 2014, how are you thinking about the relative performance of your As versus Bs, and where do you think that gap can be most meaningful or most widened? How does that potentially play into your thoughts on that category?


Michael J. Schall


Hi, Haendel. It's Mike Schall. Our belief has not changed from many years. And our belief is that when the economy goes south, people make it more conservative choice, which, and as things pick up, they decide to be less conservative and they run more A-quality-type units. So we think that, that has mostly played itself out, and we think that the Bs represent the value proposition within the apartment space, and ultimately will -- they have a strong position in all markets. So we still believe that well-located B property is -- will represent most of what the company will focus on, and it will from time to time focus on As, principally through development, and we think that that's an attractive mix.


Haendel Emmanuel St. Juste - Morgan Stanley, Research Division


Great. And one last one on that, if I may. Have you talked about... Maybe I missed it. I joined a bit late. But spot cap rates in your core markets for As and Bs today or during -- in recent weeks?


Michael J. Schall


It's Mike again, Haendel. We have not -- we did not discuss that. I don't think cap rates have changed materially over the last year. I think that A quality product in very solid markets is still in the 4 to 4 1/4 cap rate range. And B, well-located B quality property are in the 4 and 3 1/4 plus or minus cap rate range, and then lesser quality, lesser locations are above that.


Operator


The next question is coming from the line of Dave Bragg with Green Street Advisors.


David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division


To what extent does this merger process cause you to reevaluate your existing portfolio? I was unclear on the points made earlier on JV conversations if you're considering including the existing assets in those conversations as well?


Michael J. Schall


Hi, Dave. It's Mike Schall. At the Investor Day discussion, we talked about looking at the portfolio really in 3 components. The -- given the sort of the irreplaceable component, others call that gold. We have variety of different ways to refer to this. Then we have the middle category, which is we call it tradable at a price. And we have then the final piece, which is, we need to sell these assets eventually. It doesn't mean we are necessarily going to sell them any time in the near future. And we continue to look at the company the same way, whether or not more bigger portfolio. And so we're going to look at those components. Roughly, say, 40% to 45% we think is irreplaceable and around 40% is tradable. So we will look at the portfolio irrespective of whether it was an Essex asset or a BRE asset or any other asset with the one difference that Prop 13 is the material consideration in all transactions that we look at. So I don't think it changes how we'd look at world at all. We've talked about... And again, at the Investor Day, we talked about the possibility of additional joint ventures as it relates to the well-located properties that are maybe a little bit higher-cap-rate assets. And we'll continue to look at that. But I wouldn't expect any dramatic change. We're not going to go out and joint venture a huge part of the company by any means. And we're just trying to look at what the right portfolio management is that will be applied to both companies.


David Bragg - Green Street Advisors, Inc., Research Division


Okay. Thanks for that. And second question is: Although we have seen some M&A over the last year, I believe that portfolios have been on the same revenue management platforms. Can you talk in general terms, if you'd like, about transitioning a large portfolio on LRO to YieldStar?


Michael J. Schall


I don't think that the technology provider is really the key to that. I think the key is, what I referred to in the first of the 5 points that become priorities going forward, is reconciling the entire process from what it is the desired availability level at different points throughout the year; what are -- what's the relation between traffic and the number of units that you have net to lease; and therefore, what is the right renewal process. So it's really a holistic approach to all the components. And I think that the technology is more the delivery mechanism that it is as strategy. That, again, is 1,000 switches within both and you can customize whatever you want out of them. So I don't think -- I think the technology organizes the data and allows a good conversation between the price-optimizing people and the people that are active in the local marketplace and the people that are meeting with the customer. But it don't think it's in and of itself that's what the key is.


Operator


We will take one additional question from the line of Nick Joseph with Citigroup.


Nicholas Joseph - Citigroup Inc, Research Division


At the Investor Day in November, you guided the annual same-store revenue growth of 4% to 6% for the next 3 years. How should we think about that relative to 2014 guidance of 5% to 6.2% with the top-end range above that initial range?


Michael J. Schall


Nick, it's Mike Schall. I think we both agree that. We have greater confidence in the year that's right before us than we do in the out year. So if you get further away from those numbers, that -- some changes could happen, and we're not sure what to expect. We presented a scenario at the Investor Day that if we end up getting decent but not great GDP growth and decent but not great job growth, that we could sustain somewhere in that 4% to 6% range throughout that period of time. Part of that belief is based on the relatively good recent outcome and information with respect to income growth and rent to median income, which we view as a core metrics. So I think that if we get the same growth that we had in 2013, that we believe continues into 2014, if we continue to see those same relationships, I don't see anything on the supply side that's going to interrupt that. I would expect a similar year in 2015, if that all happens. But remember. I mean, we have less confidence as we get further out from 2014.


Operator


We have reached the end of our question and answer session. I would now like to move floor back over to management for any concluding comments.


Michael J. Schall


Thank you, operator. In closing, we'd like to thank you for joining the call and appreciate your interest in the company. We expect to have a busy and yet rewarding 2014. And we look forward to the closing of the merger in our call with you next quarter. Thanks again. Good day.


Operator


Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This does conclude today's teleconference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time.



This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.