InSight

Market InSights:

Tesla added to S&P500

Today is the last day that Tesla will not be part of the S&P. S&P Dow Jones Indices has announced Tesla’s addition Friday after the market close. Tesla will officially trade as a member of the S&P 500 by the time the market opens on Dec. 21. Today’s buy of Tesla at the market close will likely be the biggest buy order ever.

This means Tesla joins the S&P at today’s closing price, the volatility is already high because it is also the quadruple witching quarterly options expiration.

Some highlights you should know about TSLA’s inclusion:

  1. The addition of Tesla will cause the largest rebalancing ever of the S&P 500 ever – Tesla is the 9th largest company by market capitalization. Because most of the investments that track the SP500 are weighted by market cap, they will be adding more TSLA than anything else. It will represent about 1.5% of the index going forward. 
  2. The liquidity for Tesla will increase, as these passive funds enter the space, the access to TSLA will increase. Both to borrow and trade the access to TSLA should see some much needed liquidity.
  3. This will stabilize the historically volatile stock. The swings both directions on Tesla have been pretty epic over its lifespan. Expect that to temper somewhat. This won’t change Elon’s flagrant tweeting, or the inherently volatile relationship this company has with investors, but over time, such a large holding from passive tools like SPY will bring the range down on its intraday swings. Inversely, TSLA will start to bring its price instability to bear on the SP500 adding to its aggregate volatility.
  4. If you own exposure to U.S. Large Cap ETF’s and mutual funds, you will own more TSLA going forward. There is nothing you need to do to get the exposure. If you already own the TSLA stock outright, it is adding to the exposure. It’s likely time to rebalance.
  5. The SP500 will get a shot in the arm on the P/E ratio – expect this to jump suddenly, there is nothing wrong with the readout, TSLA’s PE (today) is close to 1300. Meaning you have to pay $1,300 for every dollar TSLA earns. Before today the PE on the broader SP500 was 37 (already high) and expect the bellwether that is Tesla to cause that further distortion. This inclusion may permanently impair any comparisons you or your broker has made to the PE of the SP500.
  6. Inclusion of TSLA, will cause some forced selling of other names of make room. Fund will have to make room for Tesla, and will push out 1.5% from the other names to make room.

The closest similarity we can draw is when Yahoo was added. It too was not a member of an S&P small or midcap index prior to its inclusion and had a similar rush to buy when it was included in 1999. As a reminder, this was considered the beginning of the “tech bubble” by many. Yahoo stock rose 50% between the announcement and its entry into the index at the time. 

Some funds have been adding to the TSLA position, in anticipation of this inclusion, but many passive funds are not allowed to until today, as close to the close as possible.

More related articles:

Articles
Kevin Taylor

Tax Mitigation Playbook: 1031 Exchange Pitfalls to Avoid

Excess Funds The identification period of a 1031 exchange refers to the first 45-days when a taxpayer identifies property they would like to acquire as a replacement to their relinquished property. It is common for a taxpayer to identify more than one potential replacement property, but only purchase one. If there are excess funds in the exchange account, the QI can return them once an exchange is complete. If the taxpayer has identified more than one potential replacement property the excess funds must remain in the exchange account until the end of the 180-day exchange period. Receiving funds before the end of the exchange period could jeopardize the entire exchange. Early Release of Funds If a taxpayer decides not to move forward with an exchange, they must acknowledge to their QI that they understand they will pay all applicable taxes on the gain. Even so, exchange facilitators are only permitted to disburse funds at particular times for particular reasons. The only time someone can terminate an exchange early is at the end of the 45-day identification period. If the taxpayer has not identified a single property by 45 days, they can close their exchange, and the funds can be disbursed. If the taxpayer has identified any property, funds must be held until the transaction is complete or at the end of the 180-day exchange period. Suppose an exchange facilitator is found to be deviating from the rules. In that case, failure to comply with regulation could jeopardize any of this taxpayer’s previous exchanges and any other exchanges facilitated by the company. 1031 Exchange Timeline “Can I start a 1031 exchange after I’ve sold my property?” or “I just closed on my property; can I still do an exchange?” There are a few variations to this question, but ultimately the answer is always the same. No. Once you’ve sold and closed on a property, it is no longer eligible for exchange. The taxpayer cannot take actual possession or control the net proceeds from the sale of a relinquished property in a 1031 exchange. An exchanger must contact a QI before selling their property. If you find yourself short on time or at the closing table, don’t lose hope with processing an exchange. With the InSight 1031 relationship and Accruit (our technology and service partner) speed and experience The transfer of the relinquished property to the Qualified Intermediary, and the receipt of the replacement property from the Qualified Intermediary is considered an exchange. To be compliant with IRC Section 1031, the transaction must be properly structured, rather than being a sale to one party followed by a purchase from another party.

Read More »
Denver Investment Experts Financial Planning
Articles
Kevin Taylor

Nikola Jokic was Robbed – and is a good lesson about this market

Let me tell you about Nikola Jokic, the Denver Nuggets’ skilled center, and basketball poet. Despite his impressive performance, he was unfairly overlooked and missed out on his third MVP recognition. Jokic’s numbers in the 2022-2023 season were exceptional – and he represents the most “value” any player in the NBA brings to his team. When Jokic is on the court, the team boasts an impressive +380 plus/minus* rating for the season. However, when he is not playing, their plus/minus rating drops to -201. His individual contributions are highlighted by his average plus/minus per game of +6.1. If the Nuggets performed at an average level without him, their win/loss record is projected at 58-24. However, without Jokic, their Net Rating plummets to -7.7, resulting in an expected win/loss record of 22-60, a significant decline of 36 wins. Although it’s disappointing that Jokic didn’t win his third MVP title, it’s crucial to recognize and appreciate the impact he makes, similar to the mega-cap group of $1T companies discussed below, and how it relates to the U.S. stock market. Likewise, when the five largest companies by market cap are removed from the S&P 500 we see a much different performance than we’re seeing right now…  A tale of two indexes:  On May 30th, Nvidia made headlines by joining the exclusive $1 trillion club for the first time. As a maker and designer of A.I. hardware and software, Nvidia achieved this remarkable milestone by raising its valuation by a staggering $280 billion or nearly 40% since May 15th. This extraordinary leap in value is unparalleled in the history of capital markets, although the company closed just below the trillion-dollar mark. However, there is a downside to Nvidia’s success, which reflects the overall trend of trillion-dollar companies this year. The five members of the Trillion-Dollar Club, including Apple, Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Amazon, and now Nvidia, have witnessed a synchronized surge in their market valuations. This surge among a select few has single-handedly propelled the S&P 500 index to +9% YTD. Without these “Super 7” (including Facebook and Tesla) the rest of the SP500 has moved less than 1% for the year. While the +9% move of the SP500 may seem positive at first, it raises concerns about the market’s dependency on these few mega-cap companies. The exorbitant prices they have reached may already be stretched to their limits, making it unlikely for them to sustain the market’s upward trajectory. The rise of Nvidia exemplifies the frothiness that has enveloped the Trillion-Dollar Club. The Trillion-Dollar Club has accounted for nearly all the gains made by the S&P 500 this year. Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Nvidia have each experienced significant increases in their market caps since January, with Nvidia leading the pack at a remarkable 176%. Together, the current members of the Trillion-Dollar Club have added a staggering $2.87 trillion to their combined market cap since the beginning of 2023. These were names that we were and in some cases still are bullish on, but the concern then comes from looming weakness in other parts of the market.  Interestingly, this rise is only slightly higher than the overall increase in the S&P 500, which stands at $2.98 trillion. Consequently, the Trillion-Dollar Club’s contribution amounts to 96% of the 9.5% year-to-date increase in the index. In essence, we can think of the Trillion-Dollar Club as a company called “Big 5 Llc”. This “company” has seen its valuation surge by 46.2% from $6.2 to $9.1 trillion. On the other hand, the remaining 495 companies in the S&P 500 have only experienced a combined gain of 0.3%.  Without the tremendous boost from the Trillion-Dollar Club, the S&P 500 would essentially be flat for the year. We have been bullish on these chip makers and tech companies for some time (examples below) but think the recent run is getting a little too exuberant and divorcing from the broader market.  Places where we discussed the potential in the AI and Chips group: The Bifercated Landscape of the “Technology” Group: Exciting Investment Trends to Follow The investment opportunity in semiconductors When does a Bear look like a Bull? The overwhelming weight of the Trillion-Dollar Club has made the S&P 500 lopsided. At the end of 2022, the club accounted for 17.6% of the S&P’s total valuation. Now, it represents 25.6%, meaning that more than one dollar in four is attributed to these mega-cap companies. As their combined market cap has increased by nearly $3 trillion in just five months, the Big Five have become significantly more expensive. Their overall price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, which is the total valuation divided by combined net earnings, has risen from 27.7 to 40.6. This indicates that investors are receiving 33% fewer dollars in earnings for every $100 they invest compared to Christmas of 2022. To put it in perspective, the current P/E ratio for the Trillion-Dollar Club is almost twice that of the overall S&P 500. This situation is concerning, considering that the Trillion-Dollar Club has already achieved substantial earnings growth since the start of the pandemic. In 2022, these seven companies generated approximately $224 billion in net profits, which was 50% more than their pre-COVID earnings in 2019. Therefore, the high multiples at which they are currently trading come on top of potentially unsustainable profit levels. The concern from here is that any weakness in this small group would be felt significantly in the broader market.  This narrow leadership can be a good sign if the momentum becomes contagious and the cash on the sidelines is brought into the market. But while cash is so lucrative, the velocity at which the cash comes into a market expecting a recession is unlikely. However, three main risks persist: Interest Rate Risk – More Constrained Lending Coming: One significant risk in the current market is the potential for more constrained lending due to interest rate changes. When interest rates rise, borrowing becomes more expensive, which can lead to reduced consumer spending and business investment. Higher interest

Read More »
Boulder Risk Management, investment
Articles
Kevin Taylor

Our ‘InSight’ on Environmental Risk Management

Climate change has emerged as a pressing global issue, triggering a paradigm shift in the way organizations approach risk management. The recognition of climate-related risks and their potential impacts on operations, supply chains, regulations, and reputation has prompted a growing need for effective climate risk management strategies. In this blog post, we will explore the concept of climate risk management, its significance in the face of a changing climate, and the key steps organizations can take to mitigate these risks and ensure long-term sustainability. You won’t hear about the BEST, you WILL hear from the rest The best companies at managing their climate change risk are companies you’ll never hear about. In the vast landscape of companies striving to effectively manage their climate change risks, there are some unsung heroes that have gone above and beyond, despite not receiving widespread recognition. These companies have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to sustainable practices and proactively addressing climate-related challenges. While they may not be the household names dominating headlines, their efforts serve as a testament to the possibilities of responsible corporate action. One such company is Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical firm that has made significant strides in integrating climate change considerations into its business operations. Novo Nordisk has set ambitious targets to reduce its carbon emissions and has been recognized as a global leader in sustainability. By investing in energy-efficient technologies, transitioning to renewable energy sources, and engaging suppliers to adopt sustainable practices, the company has managed to minimize its environmental impact. Additionally, Novo Nordisk actively collaborates with stakeholders, sharing best practices and knowledge to inspire and encourage others in the industry to follow suit. Another commendable example is Interface, a global modular flooring company based in the United States. Interface has embedded sustainability into its core business strategy and aims to have a net-zero environmental footprint by 2020. The company has taken innovative measures to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, such as implementing renewable energy projects and using recycled and bio-based materials in its products. Interface’s sustainability vision, known as “Mission Zero,” not only encompasses environmental considerations but also emphasizes social responsibility and circular economy principles. By continually pushing the boundaries of sustainable practices, Interface demonstrates that profitability and environmental stewardship can go hand in hand. These exemplary companies prove that effective climate change risk management is not limited to the spotlight-grabbing giants of the industry. Through their commitment, innovation, and collaboration, they serve as inspiring models for businesses worldwide, demonstrating that proactive measures to mitigate climate risks can yield positive environmental and financial outcomes. As more companies emulate their efforts, the collective impact can lead to a more sustainable and resilient future for our planet. You will hear about some of the companies that fail to have environmental risks managed well – and it affects their stock prices Volkswagen (VWAGY): In 2015, Volkswagen was embroiled in a scandal known as “Dieselgate.” The company admitted to intentionally manipulating emission tests to meet regulatory standards, leading to significantly higher emissions from its vehicles than reported. This failure to address climate risks and comply with emissions regulations not only resulted in financial penalties and a loss of trust from customers but also tarnished VW’s brand reputation and led to a significant decline in its market value. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PCE): PG&E, a California-based utility company, faced severe consequences due to its lack of preparedness for climate-related risks. The company’s inadequate management of vegetation near its power lines contributed to the ignition of multiple wildfires in recent years, including the devastating Camp Fire in 2018. The resulting property damage, loss of life, and legal liabilities forced PG&E to file for bankruptcy and face intense scrutiny over its failure to implement proper climate risk management practices. Adidas (ADDYY): In 2011, Adidas, a major sports apparel and footwear company, faced supply chain disruptions due to extreme weather events in Asia. Floods in Thailand, where many of its suppliers were located, resulted in factory closures and disrupted production. Adidas experienced delays in product delivery and lost sales, revealing the vulnerability of its supply chain to climate-related risks. This incident emphasized the need for companies to assess and address the potential impacts of extreme weather events on their supply chains and take proactive measures to build resilience. BP (British Petroleum) (BP): BP, a multinational oil and gas company, faced a significant environmental disaster in 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. The incident resulted in one of the largest oil spills in history, causing extensive ecological damage to marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The company was criticized for its insufficient risk management practices and failure to adequately prepare for and respond to such an event, highlighting the importance of having robust climate risk management plans in place for the oil and gas industry. At InSight, we focus on managing climate change balance sheet risk Understanding Climate Risk: Climate risk refers to the potential adverse impacts of climate change on an organization’s assets, operations, and stakeholders. These risks encompass a wide range of factors, including extreme weather events, sea-level rise, shifting weather patterns, regulatory changes, and shifts in public perception and consumer preferences. Organizations must assess the vulnerabilities and exposure of their operations to these risks to understand the magnitude of the challenges they face. Developing Adaptation Strategies: Incorporating climate risk management into an organization’s overall risk management framework is essential for building resilience and ensuring business continuity. The first step is to conduct a thorough assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on various aspects of the business. This assessment should consider both physical risks (e.g., damage to infrastructure, disruptions in supply chains) and transition risks (e.g., regulatory changes, market shifts). Based on this assessment, organizations can develop adaptation strategies tailored to their specific circumstances. These strategies may include investing in resilient infrastructure, diversifying supply chains to reduce dependencies on vulnerable regions, implementing energy-efficient practices, and exploring low-carbon business models. It is crucial to involve stakeholders from different

Read More »

Pin It on Pinterest