Research in Focus: Fast food companies down, but not out

Janus Henderson Investors

July 2024

Funds operated by this manager:

Janus Henderson Australian Fixed Interest Fund, Janus Henderson Australian Fixed Interest Fund - Institutional, Janus Henderson Cash Fund - Institutional, Janus Henderson Conservative Fixed Interest Fund, Janus Henderson Conservative Fixed Interest Fund - Institutional, Janus Henderson Diversified Credit Fund, Janus Henderson Global Equity Income Fund, Janus Henderson Global Multi-Strategy Fund, Janus Henderson Global Natural Resources Fund, Janus Henderson Tactical Income Fund

This information is issued by Janus Henderson Investors (Australia) Institutional Funds Management Limited (AFSL 444266, ABN 16 165 119 531). The information herein shall not in any way constitute advice or an invitation to invest. It is solely for information purposes and subject to change without notice. This information does not purport to be a comprehensive statement or description of any markets or securities referred to within. Any references to individual securities do not constitute a securities recommendation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. The value of an investment and the income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested.

Whilst Janus Henderson Investors (Australia) Institutional Funds Management Limited believe that the information is correct at the date of this document, no warranty or representation is given to this effect and no responsibility can be accepted by Janus Henderson Investors (Australia) Institutional Funds Management Limited to any end users for any action taken on the basis of this information. All opinions and estimates in this information are subject to change without notice and are the views of the author at the time of publication. Janus Henderson Investors (Australia) Institutional Funds Management Limited is not under any obligation to update this information to the extent that it is or becomes out of date or incorrect.

Why Anchoring is Sabotaging Your Stock Market Success

Marcus Today

July 2024

A landscape image representing the stock market and stock market analysis. The background features a digital chart with rising and falling stock prices, candlestick graphs, and financial data overlays. On the side of the image, a large anchor is more apparent and appears submerged into the stock market scene, symbolizing stability amidst the market fluctuations. The overall color scheme includes shades of blue, green, and red to reflect the dynamic nature of the stock market. No ocean or people are present in the image.

Understanding Anchoring and Its Impact on Stock Market Investments

What is Anchoring in Financial Markets?

We all have a lot of trouble buying stocks that have gone up a lot and selling stocks that have gone down a lot. If that's you then I regret to inform you that you are being affected by a well-established financial concept that only affects soft brained investors. It is called "Anchoring". Anchoring, also known as a 'focusing bias', is the use of a reference point against which to judge value.

You hear the issue every day in a broking office, it's when someone says "I can't buy that because the share price is up XYZ%" or "You can't sell that the price is down XYZ%". An even more soft brained development on the theme is when you find yourself saying "It's down XYZ% so it's cheap" or "It's up XYZ% so it's expensive".

But making money in shares is all about where the share price is going. In that equation, where the share price has been is pretty much irrelevant and the fact that we don't buy or sell a stock because it is up X percent or down X percent, because of where the share price 'was', is unscientific. What you paid for a stock, what price it was in the past, in fact, any reference to the share price history, ignores the only relevant consideration which is what the share price is going to do tomorrow. BHP five years ago was priced on a different set of facts to BHP now, so what relevance is that old high or old low. It's irrelevant.

Despite that it is common practice to reference how much a stock has moved from the lowest low or highest high and it is commonplace to take those past prices (laughably - the extreme highs or lows) as an anchor point from which to judge the current price as being expensive or cheap based on how far it is up or down since then.

But past prices are simply a statement of where a price was. The more important consideration is what the company is worth now coupled with an understanding that the market's appreciation of what the company was worth at some point in the past has almost certainly changed. As soon as the value of a company changes, which arguably it does every day, you have to move your thinking along.

If your decision making starts with a reference point from the past (It's up XYZ% from the low") you have proven yourself a bit amateur. To make a stock judgement past prices are the most unscientific of starting points.

Another amateur manifestation of anchoring is buying stocks because they have fallen a lot. This is technically wrong to do (you should sell stocks going down not buy them). Buying bombed-out stocks (catching the knife) because they have fallen a lot, ignores the fact that the market's assessment of the company's value has changed, a lot, for the worse, so the 'attraction' of a big fall is irrelevant.

The other very widespread use of anchoring is when traders use their purchase price as a reference point. "I'll sell it if it goes up 10%" or "I'll sell if it goes below my purchase price". All very nice but not rational, although, in its defence, anything, even unscientific anchoring, is better than nothing when it comes to having some trading discipline.

An extension of anchoring is 'lazy jargon'. Saying that a stock is "cheap" or "undervalued" because it has fallen a lot. Or "expensive" or overvalued" if it's gone up a lot. A stock can only be valued with reference to what it is worth, not with reference to what the share price used to be.

The best way to avoid anchoring is to forget the past price as a reference point and simply assess 'cheap or expensive' on some other criteria. PE history perhaps, or price relative to an intrinsic value calculation would be more useful.

Meanwhile you can amuse yourself by listening out for anyone, you perhaps, making comments or decisions on the basis that a stock is up X% or down X% because your sole focus should be whether a stock is going up or not. The fact that it's gone up or not, that, is irrelevant.

Anchoring - Another reason humans aren't wired to trade successfully.

Author: Marcus Padley

Funds operated by this manager:

Marcus Today Equity Income SMA, Marcus Today Growth SMA

10k Words

Equitable Investors

July 2024

Funds operated by this manager:

Equitable Investors Dragonfly Fund

Disclaimer

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Fund returns are quoted net of all fees, expenses and accrued performance fees. Delivery of this report to a recipient should not be relied on as a representation that there has been no change since the preparation date in the affairs or financial condition of the Fund or the Trustee; or that the information contained in this report remains accurate or complete at any time after the preparation date. Equitable Investors Pty Ltd (EI) does not guarantee or make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information in this report. To the extent permitted by law, EI disclaims all liability that may otherwise arise due to any information in this report being inaccurate or information being omitted. This report does not take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situation and needs of potential investors. Before making a decision to invest in the Fund the recipient should obtain professional advice. This report does not purport to contain all the information that the recipient may require to evaluate a possible investment in the Fund. The recipient should conduct their own independent analysis of the Fund and refer to the current Information Memorandum, which is available from EI.

Hedge Clippings | 12 July 2024

If there was one topic aside from inflation and interest rates that was set to dominate the news in 2024, it was going to be elections - or more importantly their outcome. 64 countries, plus the European Union, have held, or are due to hold elections this year, representing 49% of the world's population. You would expect therefore to say "Democracy Rules" - except it doesn't always apply. The potential for change in Russia (even though elections were held) was limited to say the least, as it was in Bangladesh, or Pakistan, where the most popular politician, Imran Khan, was in jail.

Last week's UK election is another case in point: Democracy, of a sort, took place with an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the ruling Conservative government, although only 59% of the population thought it was worth the effort to vote on the day. Presumably a fair proportion of the 41% who didn't vote were still following the UK's WWll era slogan "Keep Calm and Carry On". Meanwhile, a fair proportion of the 61% who did vote will have to do the same for the next 4 years. However, the result was lopsided. While the winning Labour Party control 412 or 63% out of the total of 650 House of Commons seats, they received only 34% of the overall vote.

Much of the skew can be blamed on the UK's system of first past the post voting - although if blame is to really be apportioned, Rishi Sunak and his 4 predecessors in 10 Downing Street should really shoulder it. This system saw 12.2% of the vote cast for the Liberal Democrats, who won 72 seats, while arch-spoiler Nigel Farage's Reform UK party out-polled the Lib Dems with 14.5% of the vote, but only won a paltry 5 seats for their efforts. As above, Democracy of a sort, but we have to admit better than that available - or not, depending on your view - in Putin's Russia, or for that matter Xi's China, where he was unanimously elected by almost 3,000 delegates of the National People's Congress last year.

Australia's political system may not be perfect, but proportional representation, thanks to our preferential system, sure beats the heck out of the UK, let alone China and Russia!

Which leads us to the looming election in the US, where earlier today Joe Biden was mumbling and bumbling his way through an hour-long news conference following the end of the NATO Summit commemorating its 75 years' existence (six years short of Joe's own age). In between slips of the tongue (mixing Putin with Zelensky, and for a moment naming Trump as his Vice President) Biden sounded more like he was at an election rally than a summary of the NATO deliberations. Meanwhile Trump, thanks to the US Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, was busy filing an appeal against his conviction on criminal charges stemming from hush money paid to a porn star.

Unless Biden has a change of heart, which it seems he's unwilling to do, one of them will end up as President of the free world come November.

Whichever side of politics you're on in Australia, thank your lucky stars you're here!

News & Insights

Down-trading Megatrend | Insync Fund Managers

Why invest in global equities | Magellan Asset Management

June 2024 Performance News

Bennelong Australian Equities Fund

Airlie Australian Share Fund

DS Capital Growth Fund

Glenmore Australian Equities Fund

Bennelong Long Short Equity Fund

Argonaut Natural Resources Fund

Cyan C3G Fund

If you'd like to receive Hedge Clippings direct to your inbox each Friday

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST