2013 Bespoke Report

7/28/2019 2013 Bespoke Report

1/149

1

THE BESPOKE REPORT

Bespoke Investment Group LLC


2/149

1

The Bespoke Report2013

BespokeInvestmentGroup

BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Written by Co-Founders Paul Hickey and Justin Walters

Bespoke Investment Group LLC

105 Calvert Street

Harrison, NY 10528

914-315-1248

The Bespoke Report

Everything Investors Must Know About the

Markets in 2013

Copyright 2012, Bespoke Investment Group, LLC. Bespoke Investment Group, LLC be-

lieves all information contained in this report to be accurate, but we do not guarantee its

accuracy. None of the information in this report or any opinions expressed constitutes a

solicitation of the purchase or sale of any securities or commodities.


3/149

2



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Table of Contents

I. Our View 4

II. Introduction 6

III. Prognostications 11

IV. Valuation 16

V. Sentiment 26

VI. Washington 30

VII. Seasonality 41

VIII. Sector Weightings & Technicals 53IX. Economic Indicators 62

X. Economic Cycles 74

XI. Housing 95

XII. Yield Curve 101

XIII. Dollar & Stocks 106

XIV. Credit Markets 113

XV. Commodities 117

XVI. International 123

XVII. The Year in Headlines 133

Page


4/149

3



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

About Bespoke

Bespoke Investment Group prides itself on its original content and intuitivethinking. Our unique ability to analyze financial markets in ways unlike tradi-

tional Wall Street firms is what helps us stay one step ahead of the investment

community. Bespoke provides financial research to individual and institutional

investors as well as money management services. Our work has been used ex-

tensively by some of the most prestigious Wall Street firms and major media

outlets including CNBC, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journaland Barrons.

Bespoke Investment GroupTurning Information Into Wealth

To learn more about Bespoke, please visit www.bespokepremium.com.


5/149

4



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Our View

With 2012 now relegated to the highlight reel, investors have plenty of reasons to bid goodbye

to the year. For many, the simple fact that we will not have to endure a Presidential campaignis reason enough to look forward to 2013. While there are no shortages of reasons to be

thankful 2012 is behind us, there was plenty to be thankful for in 2012 as well.

The S&P 500 finished 2012 with a gain of more than 10%, and while we didnt get there in a

straight line, anyone who bought the S&P 500 on the last day of 2011 was in the black on that

trade for every day of 2012. Up years are common in the equity market, but going back to

1928, there have only been nine other years where the S&P 500 was up YTD at the close of

trading every day of the year.

As the report that follows illustrates, the current economic recovery has been one of the

weakest on record in terms of GDP growth and just about every other metric outside of manu-

facturing. Not only has the recovery been weak, but it is also no longer a spring chicken. At a

length of 42 months, the recovery off the June 2009 lows is now just three months shorter

than average. With a weak foundation already, bears would argue that the stage is set for a

recession in 2013.

As if the weak recovery was not bad enough, we have complete dysfunction out of Washing-

ton. For businesses and consumers alike, Reagans comments from thirty years ago have

never rung more true. Far from being the solution to the problems faced by Americans, Wash-

ington is the problem. Unlike any other time in a generation, individuals and businesses are

increasingly concerned with how events in Washington will negatively affect their lives.

In addition to the current situation, the historical precedent suggests that Washington will not

be a positive influence on the market in 2013 and the years ahead. The second terms of US

Presidents have been notoriously bad for financial markets as administrations tend to lose fo-

cus or scandals are uncovered. Going back to 1900, the S&P 500 has averaged a decline of

3.8% during the first year of a re-elected Presidents second term.

With an already slow recovery thats not getting any younger and continued dysfunction out

of Washington, it should not be a surprise that economists are expecting growth of just 2% in

2012. Along with low economic growth, it is not surprising that strategists, a normally bullish

group, are expecting a gain of less than 8% for the S&P 500 in 2013. it doesnt seem like there

is a lot to be bullish about these days.


6/149

5



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Our View

Yes, there are plenty of aspects regarding the market and economy that are less than optimal,

but when is that not the case? There are also plenty of positives that emerged in 2012 that wethink can continue to move into the spotlight in 2013. For starters, in spite of all the negative

events within the market and the numerous pullbacks we saw in 2012, the S&P 500s uptrend

off the March 2009 lows remains intact.

The economy, while not particularly strong, has not been especially weak either. It is a little

less hot than Goldilocks, but the US economy did finish 2012 with some positive momentum,

and this came in spite of all the roadblocks from Washington. Housing has been and will con-

tinue to provide a boost to US economic growth. Provided we dont see even more onerous

regulations on the energy sector, the US also has the potential to see an energy boom in the

years ahead.

As the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling debates become resolved (not necessarily a foregone conclu-

sion), we expect the US to resume its trend of outperformance relative to the rest of the

world. This will boost the dollar, and a strong dollar has historically been a positive for US eq-

uities. Sectors that tend to benefit the most form a strong dollar are the ones that derive the

majority of their revenues in the United States like Consumer Discretionary, Financials, Health

Care, and even Utilities.

If these positive headwinds can continue in 2013, the potential for US equities is extremely

positive. Closing out the year, the S&P 500s valuation is cheap by just about every traditional

measure, and it is not just slightly cheap. Analysts are currently expecting operating earningsof $112.82 for the S&P 500. If the index were to trade simply at an average P/E ratio of 15.33,

that would translate to a level of around 1,730 on the S&P 500 for year end 2013, or a gain of

22%. Granted, analysts are often overly optimistic, but even if there is no earnings growth in

2012, earnings would come in at $99.38. Based on this level of earnings, an average P/E ratio

of the S&P 500 would still work out to 1,523.5, or 7% above current levels.

Where will 2013 pan out? We expect it to be somewhere in between, and we see the S&P 500

trading at or near a level of 1,600 in the year ahead. In terms of percentages, this works out to

a gain of around 13%. 13% in 13 we like the sound of that. Happy New Year!


7/149

6



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

The S&P 500 started 2012 with a rip-roaring rally, gaining more than 10% in the first quarter.

But what goes up must come down, and thats just what happened in April and May when the

market gave up ALL of its first quarter gains due to the euro crisis. On the day that the Su-

preme Court health care ruling came down, the market bottomed, however, and it didnt look

back from June through mid-September. Unfortunately, what could have been a stellar year

turned into just a decent one when fiscal cliff issues took control of the market in the fourth

quarter, leaving the S&P up 12.5% YTD, well below its third quarter high.

S&P 500 in 2012

+13% YTD

-0.01

0.10

-0.03

0.13

0.04

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500January February March April May June July August Sept. October Nov. Dec.

4.36% 1.26% 2.42%4.06% -6.26%-0.75% 3.96% 1.98% 0.28%-1.97%3.13%

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Daily % Change

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Average % Change by Day of Week

Average Day of Week % Chg by Month

0.42%

January February March April May June July August Sept. October Nov. Dec.


8/149

7



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Below is a table highlighting the performance of various asset classes (using ETFs) in 2012. Af-

ter falling significantly in 2011, Europe bounced back in a big way in 2012, with France, Ger-

many, the UK and even Italy posting gains of more than 10%. Mexico and Germany were the

best performing ETFs on the entire list in 2012 with gains of more than 28%.

US index ETFs were mostly up in the mid-teens in 2012, but Midcaps performed the best. Of

the ten S&P 500 sectors, the Financials did the best with a gain of 25.69%, followed by Con-

sumer Discretionary at +21.23%. The Utilities sector was the only one that declined for the

year at 3.49%. The bulk of the red on the matrix comes from the commodities sector, while

fixed income posted minimal gains for the full year even though it struggled in the 2nd half.

US Related Global

ETF Description Dec. Q4 2012 ETF Description Dec. Q4 2012

SPY S&P 500 -0.15 -1.41 13.10 EWA Australia 0.52 5.51 17.07DIA Dow 30 0.17 -2.78 6.95 EWZ Brazil 8.36 3.39 -2.61

QQQ Nasdaq 100 -1.20 -5.19 16.44 EWC Canada 1.10 -0.25 6.84

IJH S&P Midcap 400 1.46 2.94 15.95 FXI China 8.82 16.84 15.93

IJR S&P Smallcap 600 2.11 1.09 14.07 EWQ France 4.99 12.25 20.28

IWB Russell 1000 0.09 -0.82 13.64 EWG Germany 4.89 9.30 28.36

IWM Russell 2000 2.33 0.67 13.89 EWH Hong Kong 1.67 6.76 25.60

IWV Russell 3000 0.35 -0.62 13.67 INP India 0.46 1.16 27.37

NYC NYSE Comp 1.34 1.83 11.97 EWI Italy 5.10 11.39 11.76

EWJ Japan 4.50 6.27 6.97

IVW S&P 500 Growth -0.94 -2.92 12.09 EWW Mexico 4.49 7.48 30.73

IJK Midcap 400 Growth 0.70 2.14 15.83 EWP Spain 4.36 8.99 -0.30

IJT Smallcap 600 Growth 2.03 0.24 12.54 RSX Russia 7.29 3.75 12.08

IVE S&P 500 Value 1.07 0.49 14.32 EWU UK 1.04 2.69 10.54IJJ Midcap 400 Value 2.11 3.47 15.77

IJS Smallcap 600 Value 2.40 2.05 15.57 EFA EAFE 3.03 7.06 14.56

DVY DJ Dividend -1.09 -1.16 6.03 EEM Emerging Mkts 6.01 7.19 16.75

RSP S&P 500 Equalweight 1.37 1.82 14.80 IOO Global 100 1.32 2.08 9.94

EEB BRIC 4.00 1.10 2.40

FXB British Pound 1.25 0.43 4.13

FXE Euro 1.45 2.56 1.58 DBC Commodities -1.28 -3.28 3.35

FXY Yen -5.03 -10.16 -11.65 USO Oil 2.43 -2.26 -12.49

UNG Nat. Gas -7.31 -11.43 -26.86

XLY Cons Disc -0.48 1.10 21.23 GLD Gold -2.39 -5.71 6.64

XLP Cons Stap -3.58 -3.00 6.96 SLV Silver -9.02 -12.07 9.28

XLE Energy 0.00 -3.23 2.79

XLF Financials 3.68 4.81 25.69 SHY 1-3 Yr Treasuries -0.04 -0.11 -0.11

XLV Health Care -1.13 -0.83 14.69 IEF 7-10 Yr Treasuries -1.22 -0.91 1.80

XLI Industrials 1.75 3.42 11.94 TLT 20+ Yr Treasuries -3.02 -2.58 -0.19

XLB Materials 2.04 1.77 11.79 AGG Aggregate Bond -0.65 -0.82 1.15

XLK Technology -0.88 -6.33 13.46 BND Total Bond Market -0.58 -0.83 1.17

IYZ Telecom 1.21 -5.33 15.10 TIP T.I.P.S. -1.23 -0.30 4.04

XLU Utilities -1.68 -4.58 -3.49

Key ETF Performance (%)


9/149

8



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

We ran our decile analysis on the S&P 500 to see which stock characteristics helped or hurt

stocks in 2012. To do this, we broke the index into deciles (10 groups of 50 stocks each) based

on the various categories listed in the matrix below, and then we calculated the average per-

formance of stocks in each decile in 2012.

A few key characteristics impacted performance significantly in 2012. These were P/E ratio,

dividend yield and international revenue exposure. As shown below, the best performing dec-

ile in the entire matrix was the one made up of the 50 S&P 500 stocks with the highest P/E ra-

tios. These stocks were up an average of 29.25%. The worst performing decile in the entire

matrix was the one made up of the S&P 500 stocks with the highest dividend yields. The

stocks in this decile actually averaged a decline of 0.63% in 2012, compared to an average gain

of 12% for all S&P 500 stocks. Based on the weak performance of high yielding stocks and the

strong performance of the stocks with the least attractive valuations, investors were clearly in

risk-on mode in 2012, looking for growth instead of value.

The final characteristic that impacted performance in 2012 is international revenue exposure.

As shown, the decile of stocks with the most international revenue exposure were up just

0.21% in 2012. While global stock markets did well during the year, the euro crisis caused US

investors to shun US stocks with heavy international exposure.

Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Decile 10

Market Cap

(Largest to

Smallest)

14.47% 12.77% 9.94% 7.84% 14.74% 13.22% 11.22% 13.43% 11.18% 18.27%

P/E Ratio (Lowest

to Highest) 14.39% -0.32% 14.75% 11.75% 12.26% 13.08% 10.69% 12.58% 8.64% 29.25%

Dividend Yield

(Highest to

Lowest)*

-0.63% 8.51% 15.19% 14.54% 11.12% 10.23% 13.43% 14.49% 17.82% 16.75%

Short Interest

(Lowest to

Highest)

7.75% 18.73% 13.50% 12.50% 16.85% 12.16% 12.49% 8.56% 7.80% 16.74%

Analyst Ratings

(Best to Worst)14.92% 10.99% 10.26% 11.25% 17.11% 6.75% 21.75% 13.37% 4.51% 16.18%

Institutional

Ownership (Most

to Least)

12.26% 9.72% 8.57% 16.86% 14.61% 25.45% 16.16% 8.91% 7.21% 7.39%

International

Revenues

(Most to Least)**

0.21% 12.16% 12.43% 11.01% 23.71% 14.87% 14.66% 11.58% 11.76% 13.10%

% Chg in 2011

(Best to Worst)12.32% 9.30% 11.00% 14.07% 13.72% 10.04% 16.89% 11.15% 9.92% 17.61%

*Decile 10 of dividend yield category is made up of all stocks that pay no dividend.

**Decile 10 of international revenues category is made up of all stocks that have no international revenues.

S&P 500 Decile Performance in 2012


10/149

9



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

With a gain of more than 10% in 2012, the S&P 500s bull market that began back on March

9th, 2009 continued. (To begin a new bear market, the index would need to fall 20% from its

bull market high.)

Below is a snapshot of all S&P 500 bull markets (a rally of 20%+ that was preceded by a decline

of 20%+) since 1928. As shown, the average bull market has seen a gain of 102.22%, and it has

lasted 906 days. The current bull market has eclipsed both of these averages with a gain of

116.66% and a length of 1,285 days. While it may not seem like it, the current bull market cur-

rently ranks as the 9th longest on record, and if the S&P 500 makes a new high in 2013, it

could move all the way up to the 6th longest depending on when the high occurs.

Begin End % Change Days Begin End % Change Days

12/4/1987 3/24/2000 582.15% 4,494 12/30/1927 9/16/1929 80.41% 626

6/13/1949 8/2/1956 267.08% 2,607 11/13/1929 4/10/1930 46.77% 148

10/3/1974 11/28/1980 125.63% 2,248 12/16/1930 2/24/1931 25.83% 70

7/23/2002 10/9/2007 96.21% 1,904 6/2/1931 6/26/1931 25.82% 24

8/12/1982 8/25/1987 228.81% 1,839 10/5/1931 11/9/1931 30.61% 35

10/22/1957 12/12/1961 86.35% 1,512 6/1/1932 9/7/1932 111.59% 98

4/28/1942 5/29/1946 157.70% 1,492 2/27/1933 7/18/1933 120.61% 141

6/26/1962 2/9/1966 79.78% 1,324 10/19/1933 2/6/1934 37.28% 110

3/9/2009 9/14/2012 116.66% 1,285 3/14/1935 3/10/1937 131.64% 727

5/26/1970 1/11/1973 73.53% 961 3/31/1938 11/9/1938 62.24% 223

10/7/1966 11/29/1968 48.05% 784 4/11/1939 10/25/1939 26.78% 197

3/14/1935 3/10/1937 131.64% 727 6/10/1940 11/7/1940 26.70% 150

12/30/1927 9/16/1929 80.41% 626 4/28/1942 5/29/1946 157.70% 1,4925/19/1947 6/15/1948 23.89% 393 5/19/1947 6/15/1948 23.89% 393

3/31/1938 11/9/1938 62.24% 223 6/13/1949 8/2/1956 267.08% 2,607

4/11/1939 10/25/1939 26.78% 197 10/22/1957 12/12/1961 86.35% 1,512

6/10/1940 11/7/1940 26.70% 150 6/26/1962 2/9/1966 79.78% 1,324

11/13/1929 4/10/1930 46.77% 148 10/7/1966 11/29/1968 48.05% 784

2/27/1933 7/18/1933 120.61% 141 5/26/1970 1/11/1973 73.53% 961

10/19/1933 2/6/1934 37.28% 110 10/3/1974 11/28/1980 125.63% 2,248

9/21/2001 1/4/2002 21.40% 105 8/12/1982 8/25/1987 228.81% 1,839

6/1/1932 9/7/1932 111.59% 98 12/4/1987 3/24/2000 582.15% 4,494

12/16/1930 2/24/1931 25.83% 70 9/21/2001 1/4/2002 21.40% 105

11/20/2008 1/6/2009 24.22% 47 7/23/2002 10/9/2007 96.21% 1,90410/5/1931 11/9/1931 30.61% 35 11/20/2008 1/6/2009 24.22% 47

6/2/1931 6/26/1931 25.82% 24 3/9/2009 9/14/2012 116.66% 1,285

Average 102.22% 906 Average 102.22% 906

S&P 500 Bull Markets S&P 500 Bull Markets


11/149

10



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Although the S&P 500 finished 2012 with a gain of more than 10%, the DJIAs return came in

at a much tamer 6.1%. Going back to 1900, there have actually been 18 other years where the

DJIA saw a single digit percentage gain.

In the chart below, we show annual returns for the DJIA grouped according to their percent-

age moves. Underneath each group, we highlight the average annual change in the DJIA in the

year after similar moves. Small annual changes in the DJIA are not necessarily such a bad

thing, and can even be considered a pause that refreshes. When the DJIA sees an annual gain

of between 0% and 10%, the average change in the following year is a gain of 6.2%. Of those

18 years, the index has been up 61% of the time which is slightly less than the historical aver-

age for all years since 1900 (64% of the time positive).

1982: 19.61961: 18.7

1976: 17.9

1950: 17.6

1952: 8.4 1963: 17.0

1912: 7.7 1959: 16.4 1938: 28.1

1960: -9.3 1942: 7.6 2006: 16.3 1927: 27.7

1981: -9.2 2012: 7.1 1998: 16.1 1985: 27.7

1901: -8.7 2007: 6.4 1967: 15.2 1989: 27.0

1946: -8.1 1971: 6.1 1909: 15.0 1945: 26.6

2001: -7.1 2011: 5.2 1980: 14.9 1924: 26.2

1966: -18.9 2000: -6.2 1970: 4.8 1972: 14.6 1996: 26.0

1910: -17.8 1990: -4.3 1968: 4.3 1964: 14.6 1925: 25.4

1977: -17.2 1916: -4.2 1979: 4.2 1951: 14.4 2003: 25.3

1929: -17.1 1953: -3.8 1992: 4.2 1943: 14.1 1999: 25.2

2002: -16.7 1984: -3.7 1934: 4.1 1993: 13.7 1936: 24.8

1973: -16.5 1978: -3.1 1926: 4.1 1949: 12.9 1997: 22.6

1907: -37.7 1941: -15.3 1939: -2.9 2004: 3.1 1921: 12.3 1986: 22.6 1935: 38.5

2008: -33.8 1969: -15.1 1923: -2.7 1956: 2.3 1988: 11.9 1922: 21.5 1975: 38.3

1930: -33.7 1974: -27.5 1957: -12.7 1906: -2.3 1987: 2.3 1944: 11.8 1955: 20.8 1905: 37.8 1928: 49.5

1920: -32.9 1903: -23.6 1940: -12.7 1948: -2.1 1947: 2.2 2010: 11.0 1991: 20.3 1958: 34.0 1908: 46.6

1937: -32.8 1932: -23.0 1962: -10.8 2005: -0.6 1994: 2.1 1965: 10.9 1983: 20.3 1995: 33.5 1954: 44.0 1915: 81.5

1931: -52.6 1914: -30.6 1917: -21.7 1913: -10.3 1902: -0.4 1911: 0.2 1918: 10.5 2009: 20.2 1919: 30.5 1904: 42.6 1933: 66.7

-50%+ -40%+ -30%+ -20%+ -10%+ -0%-10% 0%-10% 10%+ 20%+ 30%+ 40%+ 50%+

Average DJIA Return in the Following Year (%)

DJIA: Annual Returns & Average Return in the Following Year: 1900 - 2012

-23.1

22.7

39.5

-0.5

4.2

6.2 5.4 5.83.7

24.6

-6.5

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

-50%+ -40%+ -30%+ -20%+ -10%+ -0%-10% 0%-10% 10%+ 20%+ 30%+ 40%+ 50%+


12/149

11



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

PrognosticationsS&P 500

Below we highlight the 2013 year-end S&P 500 price targets for the main equity strategists at

fourteen Wall Street firms as surveyed by Bloomberg. Collectively, strategists are expectingthe S&P 500 to finish 2013 at 1,531, which would be a gain of roughly 9%. All but one strate-

gist is expecting the index to gain in 2013, with Citigroup and Bank of America expecting the

largest gains. Citigroup has a 2013-year end price target of 1,615, while Bank of America is at

1,600. Oppenheimer, JP Morgan, Bank of Montreal and Goldman Sachs all have price targets

between 1,575 and 1,585, and then HSBC, Credit Suisse, Barclays, Weeden and Stifel Nicolaus

are at 1,500 to 1,560.

The three most bearish strategists for 2013 are Morgan Stanley, UBS and Wells Fargo. Morgan

Stanley expects the S&P 500 to finish 2013 at 1,434, which would be a gain of just 1.85%,while UBS is at 1,425 (+1.21%). Wells Fargo is the lone strategist that expects the S&P 500 to

decline in 2013 down to 1,390.

Firm 2013 Year-End Target % Change

Citigroup 1,615 14.70

Bank of America 1,600 13.64

Oppenheimer 1,585 12.57

JPMorgan 1,580 12.22

Bank of Montreal 1,575 11.86Goldman Sachs 1,575 11.86

HSBC 1,560 10.80

Credit Suisse 1,550 10.09

Barclays 1,525 8.31

Weeden 1,525 8.31

Stifel Nicolaus 1,500 6.53

Morgan Stanley 1,434 1.85

UBS 1,425 1.21

Wells Fargo 1,390 -1.28

Average 1,531 8.76

2013 Wall Street Strategist S&P 500 Year-End Price Targets

-1.3

1.2

1.8

6.5

8.3

8.3

8.8

10.1

10.8

11.9

11.9

12.2

12.6

13.6

14.7

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Wells Fargo

UBS

Morgan Stanley

Stifel Nicolaus

Barclays

Weeden

Average

Credit Suisse

HSBC

Bank of Montreal

Goldman Sachs

JPMorgan

Oppenheimer

Bank of America

Citigroup

2013 % Change


13/149

12



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

PrognosticationsS&P 500 Earnings Growth

Below we highlight the 2013 earnings growth expectations for the S&P 500 and its ten sectors.

For the index as a whole, the year is expected to start out weak with earnings growth of just1.5% in the first quarter, but it picks up to the high single digits in the second and third quar-

ter, and for the full year earnings are expected to grow 8.8%.

All ten S&P 500 sectors are expected to see earnings growth in 2013, with Telecom and Mate-

rials expected to see the strongest growth at 20.4% and 19.6%, respectively. The biggest sec-

tor of the market Technology is expected to grow 8.1%, while the second biggest Fi-

nancials is expected to grow 14.3%. Health Care, Energy and Utilities are set to grow in the

mid to low single digits.

2013 S&P 500 Sector Consensus EPS Growth Estimates

1.4

4.8 5.2

7.7 7.8 8.19.5

14.3

19.6 20.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 S&P 500 Consensus EPS YoY % Growth Estimates

3.1

1.5

8.79.6

8.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Q4 12 Q1 13 Q2 13 Q3 13 Full Year


14/149

13



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

PrognosticationsUS EconomyEconomists are looking for the US economy to grow just 2% in 2013, which would mean sub-

3% growth for 8 straight years. Inflation is expected to remain very tame as well at just 1.9%.The unemployment rate is expected to continue lower but not by much, falling from an aver-

age of 8.1% in 2012 down to 7.7% in 2013. By the fourth quarter of 2013, economists expect

the unemployment rate to be at 7.5%, which is well above the 6.5% level the Fed needs to see

before thinking about tightening monetary policy.

Real GDP YoY% Economist Estimates

3.10

2.701.90

-0.30

-3.10

2.401.80 2.20 2.00

2.80

-4.0-3.0-2.0

-1.00.0

1.02.03.04.0

GDP

Yearly4.10

2.00

1.30

3.10

1.401.60

2.102.50 2.70

2.80

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Q411

Q112

Q212

Q312

Q412

Q113

Q213

Q313

Q413

Q114

GDP

Quarterly

CPI YoY% Economist Estimates

3.38

3.232.87

3.85

-0.35

1.63

3.17

2.101.90 2.10

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.03.0

4.0

5.0

CP

I

Yearly

3.30

2.83

1.90

1.70

2.001.70

2.00 1.90 2.10 2.10

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Q411

Q112

Q212

Q312

Q412

Q113

Q213

Q313

Q413

Q114

CPI

Quarterly

Unemployment Rate % Economist Estimates

5.10

4.60 4.60

5.80

9.309.60

9.008.10

7.707.30

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Unemp.Ra

te

Yearly8.70

8.278.17

8.07

7.80 7.80 7.807.70

7.50 7.50

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

Q411

Q112

Q212

Q312

Q412

Q113

Q213

Q313

Q413

Q114

Unemp.

Ra

te

Quarterly


15/149

14



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

PrognosticationsInterest Rates

In terms of interest rates, economists expect the yield on the 10-Year Treasury Note to rise to

2.17% in 2013. They expect the 2-Year Treasury to jump from 0.26% to 0.43% for the full yearand then to 0.51% by the first quarter of 2014. The 10-Year/2-Year spread would jump from

1.4 percentage points up to 1.74 percentage points if estimates are correct, which would likely

be a signal of economic strength if it pans out. The Fed Funds Rate is obviously expected to

remain where it is.

10-Year Treasury Yield Consensus Economist Estimates

4.39

4.70

4.03

2.21

3.84

3.301.88 1.66 2.17

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Yield

Yearly

1.88

2.21

1.65

1.63

1.661.77

1.88 2.02

2.17

2.34

1.01.21.41.61.8

2.02.2

2.42.6

Q411

Q112

Q212

Q312

Q412

Q113

Q213

Q313

Q413

Q114

Yie

ld

Quarterly

2-Year Treasury Yield Consensus Economist Estimates

4.40

4.81

3.050.77

1.140.60 0.24 0.26 0.43

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Yield

Yearly

0.24

0.33

0.300.23

0.26 0.270.32

0.36

0.43

0.51

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Q411

Q112

Q212

Q312

Q412

Q113

Q213

Q313

Q413

Q114

Yield

Quarterly

Fed Funds Rate Consensus Economist Estimates

4.25

5.25

4.25

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Yield

Yearly

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Q411

Q112

Q212

Q312

Q412

Q113

Q213

Q313

Q413

Q114

Yield

Quarterly


16/149

15



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

PrognosticationsCurrencies

Currency strategists expect the dollar to gain slightly versus the euro in 2013 from 1.28 to

1.27. The euro is expected to gain the loss back in 2014 with a jump back up to 1.28.

Euro Consensus Economist Estimates

1.18

1.32

1.461.40

1.43

1.341.30 1.28 1.27 1.28

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

USD/EUR

Yearly

1.30

1.33

1.27

1.291.28 1.28 1.28

1.27 1.27

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

Q411

Q112

Q212

Q312

Q412

Q113

Q213

Q313

Q413

USD/EUR

Quarterly


17/149

16



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

In last years report we identified a trend that began with the Financial Crisis and continued in

the years that followed. That trend is investors increasingly shifting their focus from funda-mentals and valuations to more macro related issues. Whether it has been the ongoing debt

crisis in Europe, the economic slowdown and transition of power in China, geo-political issues

in the Middle East, or political issues here at home, valuations have taken a back seat. In last

years report, we argued that this would be less evident in 2012, and while macro related is-

sues still moved the market up and down, attractive valuations provided a cushion on the

downside and room for multiple expansion.

Part of the reason for the lack of focus on company fundamentals may be related to the fact

that holding periods have shortened so much. If you only plan on holding a stock for a few

weeks, you are less likely to care as much about the stocks valuation. That being said, ulti-mately valuations matter. As we began to see in 2012, as the market becomes less volatile,

valuations will play a larger role.

Closing out 2012, the S&P 500 is trading at about 14.64 times trailing earnings (through Q3

2012), which is a modest increase from the start of the year when the index was trading at just

above 13 times trailing earnings. Even after this years multiple expansion, though, the index

is still trading below its historical average of 15.33 times trailing earnings. In order to trade at

an average valuation, the S&P 500 would need to trade at 1,500, or 5% above current levels.

S&P 500 Trailing P/E Ratio: 1929 - 2012

5

15

25

35

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

P/E: 14.64

Long Term Average: 15.33


18/149

17



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

It is always dicey to try and place a valuation on future earnings. We know all too well that

analysts have a tendency of being overly optimistic in their assumptions when things are goingwell and overly dour when things are bad. With that caveat in mind, the chart below shows

the P/E ratio of the S&P 500 based on 12-month forward earnings. For this chart we looked at

actual 12-month forward earnings where available and have used estimated earnings to cover

the next four quarters.

Currently, the S&P 500 is trading at 13.7 times next years earnings forecast of 104.55 (Q4

2012 through Q3 2013). This is eight percent below the historical average of 14.91, meaning

that the S&P 500 would have to trade at 1,560 to get to average. So whether you want to look

at earnings on a trailing or forward basis, the S&P 500 is anywhere from 5% to 9% underval-

ued. This relative undervaluation implies that even if earnings growth for calendar year 2013comes in below the 14% growth currently forecast, there is still room for error. In fact, even if

earnings show zero growth in 2013, the S&P 500 would still be modestly undervalued based

on its historical average P/E ratio.

With regards to the S&P 500s book value, the index is currently trading at 2.24 times its book

value of $640. Since 1978, the average P/B ratio has been 2.42. Using the average valuation,

the price target for the S&P 500 would be 1,547 assuming no change in book value in 2013.

S&P 500Forward P/E Ratio: 1929 - 2012

5

15

25

35

45

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

Forward P/E: 13.70


S&P 500 Trailing P/E Ratio: 1929 - 2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

P/B: 2.24



19/149

18



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

With respect to dividend yields, the S&P 500 is finishing off 2012 exactly where it finished off

2011, with a dividend yield of 2.10%. While the index is cheap by just about any measure, divi-dend yield is one measure which is significantly below average. Going back to 1929, the aver-

age dividend yield on the S&P 500 has been 87% higher at 3.92%.

Although the S&P 500s dividend yield is low on an absolute basis, relative to the alternatives,

it is very attractive. At the end of 2011, the S&P 500 was yielding 25% more than the 10-Year

US Treasury. Outside of the credit crisis, the last time the S&P 500 yielded more than the 10-

Year Treasury was before 1960. In order for the dividend yield to get back to its historical av-erage relative to US Treasuries, either the 10-Year yield would have to rise back above 1.9%,

the S&P 500 would have to rally to 1,600, or you would have to see some combination of the

two.

S&P 500 Dividend Yield: 1929 - 2012

0

4

8

12

16

20

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

Dividend Yield: 2.10 %

Long Term Average: 3.92%

S&P 500 Dividend Yield Relative to Treasuries: 1929 - 2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

Dividend Yield Relative to Treasuries: 1.25



20/149

19



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

Another way to look at valuations is through the earnings yield of the S&P 500. This is simply a

reverse of the P/E ratio, so instead of dividing price by earnings, you divide earnings by price.

In terms of earnings yield, the S&P 500 is currently yielding 6.83%, which is down from levels

where we started the year and below the historical average of 7.35%. Based on this measure,

the S&P 500 is closing out 2012 at slightly overvalued levels. All else being equal, in order to

have an average earnings yield of 7.35%, the S&P 500 would need to fall to 1,330 based on the

last four quarters of earnings.

Although the S&P 500s earnings yield is modestly below average, relative to an alternative of

long-term US Treasuries, the yield looks considerably more attractive. Going back to 1929, theS&P 500s earnings yield has averaged twice the yield of the 10-year US Treasury. Currently,

the S&P 500s yield is more than four times the yield on the 10-year. So to get to an average

premium, you would need to see some combination of earnings declining, the S&P 500 rising,

and yields rising.

S&P 500 Earnings Yield (%): 1929 - 2012

0

6

12

18

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

Earnings Yield: 6.83%

Long Term Average: 7.35%

S&P 500 Earnings Yield vs Treasuries: 1929 - 2012

0

3

6

9

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

Earnings Yield vs Treasuries: 4.13



21/149

20



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

Some strategists and investors will argue that comparing the earnings yield of the S&P 500 (a

risky asset) to the yield on the 10-Year US Treasury (a so-called risk-free asset) is an apples tooranges comparison. With that in mind, in the chart below we compare the earnings yield on

the S&P 500 to the yield on corporate bonds using the average yield of Moodys AAA and BAA

corporate indices.

The earnings yield of the S&P 500 is currently 1.67 times greater than the yield on corporate

bonds. This represents a slight decline from where we were last year at this time (1.70). Rela-

tive to history, the current level is well above the historical average of 1.43 and near its high-

est reading since the late 1950s. In order for the S&P 500 to trade at an average earnings

yield relative to corporate bonds, either interest rates would need to rise or the S&P 500

would need to rally to 1,667!

Obviously with interest rates at record low levels, the earnings yield of the S&P 500 is going to

be high relative to bond yields. Therefore it is unlikely that these indicators will revert to their

historical averages as long as interest rates remain low. That being said, what we said last

year at this time is just as applicable today. With earnings expected to grow by 11% in 2013,

there is significant room for the market to run and still remain fairly valued.

Looking at the chart above, it is amazing to see how investor sentiment has shifted in the lastdecade. From 1980, through 2010, equities traded at a premium to corporate bonds, but

since 2010 investors have preferred bonds to stocks. Eventually that sentiment will reverse

back to equities over bonds, but historically these shifts have occurred over decades as op-

posed to months or years.

S&P 500 Earnings Yield vs Corporate Bond Yields: 1929 - 2012

0

2

4

6

'29 '39 '49 '59 '69 '79 '89 '99 '09

Earnings Yield vs Corporates: 1.67

Long Term A verage: 1.43


22/149

21



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

Comparing the S&P 500s average P/E ratio since the start of 2010 to the average P/E ratio by

decade shows that current valuations havent been this low since the 1980s.

At the same time, dividend yields are only slightly higher in this decade than they were in the

last decade and that was the lowest average dividend yield of any decade since at least the

1930s.

The most encouraging indicators of the ones we looked at is the average ratio of the earnings

yield to the 10-Year Treasury yield and corporate bonds. Since 2010, the earnings yield has

averaged a premium of nearly three times the yield on the 10-Year US Treasury, and premium

of 1.4 times the yield on corporate bonds. The only decades where these two ratios was

higher was in the 1940s and 1950s.

Average P/E Ratio By Decade Average Dividend Yield By Decade

17.6

11.211.9

17.9

12.3 12.0

19.620.2

15.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 2010-

5.95.7

4.9

3.2

4.04.2

2.4

1.8 2.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 2010-

Average Earnings Yield Relative to 10-Yr Yield Average Earnings Yield Relative to Moodys Corporate Bonds

2.1

5.0

3.4

1.2 1.20.8 0.8

1.2

2.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 2010-

1.3

3.2

2.7

1.1 1.0

0.7 0.70.8

1.4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 2010-


23/149

22



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

So how have P/E ratios changed in this bull mar-

ket relative to the last bull market? In the tableto the right and the chart below, we have shown

how sector P/E ratios have changed since Janu-

ary 2007, which was near the height of the last

bull market and before the credit crisis began to

unfold. As shown to the right, P/E ratios for the

S&P 500 as a whole have compressed by 13.9%

from 16.9 times trailing earnings down to 14.6

times trailing earnings today.

Looking at individual sectors, seven have seen a compression in their P/E ratios over the lastsix years, while just three (Telecom Services, Energy, and Materials) have seen an expansion in

their P/E ratios. Technology has seen the largest compression in its P/E ratio. In January 2007,

the sector had the highest P/E ratio at a level of 23.3. Today, the sectors P/E ratio has de-

clined to 15.1 and now has the fifth lowest P/E ratio of the ten sectors.

Technology, Health Care, and

Energy have seen the largest

move down in the rankings,

while Utilities and Consumer

Staples have seen the biggest

move up in the rankings.

January 2007 December 2012 Change (%)Telecom Svcs 19.3 22.5 16.5

Energy 10.6 11.8 11.5

Materials 15.1 15.6 3.0

Utilities 17.2 15.4 -10.3

Financials 14.2 12.3 -13.0

S&P 500 16.9 14.6 -13.9

Cons Discret. 21.0 17.8 -15.6

Cons Staples 20.6 17.0 -17.7

Health Care 18.6 14.4 -22.7

Industrials 18.6 13.8 -25.9

Technology 23.3 15.1 -35.1

Sector P/E Ratios

S&P 500 Sector P/E Ratios: 2007 - 2012

P/E Ratio: January 2007

P/E Ratio: December 2012

23.3

21.0 20.619.3 18.6 18.6

17.215.1

14.2

10.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

Technology

ConsDiscret.

ConsStaples

TelecomSvcs

HealthCare

Industrials

Utilities

Materials

Financials

Energy

22.5

17.8 17.015.6 15.4 15.1 14.4 13.8

12.3 11.8

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

TelecomSvcs

ConsDiscret.

ConsStaples

Materials

Utilities

Technology

HealthCare

Industrials

Financials

Energy


24/149

23



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

In terms of dividend yields, there have been

some big shifts since the height of the last bullmarket. Technology has seen its dividend yield

increase by 120%, but because the yield was

rising off of such a low base, it still has the low-

est dividend yield of the ten sectors. Interest-

ingly, eight of the ten sectors have seen their

dividend yields rise by more than the S&P 500.

This is due entirely to the 44% decline in the

yield of the Financials, which saw its yield drop

from 3.4% down to 1.9%.

In terms of sector rankings, besides the large decline in the rank of Financials from highest

yield in January 2007 to third lowest now, there has not been much in the way of big moves.

As shown, besides Financials, only two other sectors have seen their ranking move by more

than one place (Consumer Staples and Energy).

S&P 500 Sector Dividend Yields: 2000 - 2011

Dividend Yield: January 2007

Dividend Yield: December 2012

3.4

3.12.9

2.6

2.21.9

1.6 1.5

1.2

0.6

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Financials

TelecomSvcs

Utilities

Materials

ConsStaples

Industrials

HealthCare

Energy

ConsDiscret.

Technology

4.7

4.2

3.1

2.62.4 2.2 2.1

1.91.6

1.4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

TelecomSvcs

Utilities

ConsStaples

Materials

Industrials

Energy

HealthCare

Financials

ConsDiscret.

Technology

Technology saw the largest

increase in its yield but is still

the lowest yielding of the ten

sectors. That being said, the

sectors yield is now only 50

basis points below the yield of

the Financial sector.

January 2007 December 2012 Change (%)

Technology 0.6 1.4 119.9

Telecom Svcs 3.1 4.7 53.0

Energy 1.5 2.2 51.5

Utilities 2.9 4.2 43.8

Cons Staples 2.2 3.1 42.8

Cons Discret. 1.2 1.6 37.5

Health Care 1.6 2.1 35.6

Industrials 1.9 2.4 26.7

S&P 500 1.8 2.1 22.9

Materials 2.6 2.6 -1.4

Financials 3.4 1.9 -44.7

Sector Dividend Yields


25/149


26/149

25



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Valuation

Even though most sectors saw multiples expand in 2012, for most their dividend yields in-

creased as well. Even though the S&P 500 saw its dividend yield remain flat at 2.10%, sevensectors saw their dividend yields expand during the year.

The three sectors that saw a decline in their yields were Telecom Services, Health Care, and

Consumer Discretionary. The decline in yields, however, was the result of prices rising faster

than payouts rather than dividends being cut. On the upside, three sectors (Technology, En-

ergy, and Materials) all saw their dividend yields increase by more than 10% this year.

Even with a gain of more than 20% this year, the Financial sector still saw a modest increase in

its dividend yield, which rose from 1.86% to 1.90%. 2012 was a year where Financials found a

firmer foundation, and as the Financial crisis drifts further back into the rearview mirror, com-

panies in the sector will be increasingly raising their payouts. Keep in mind that in early 2007

the sectors dividend yield was 80% higher than it is now.

With tax treatment of dividends likely to change in 2013, the big wildcard is how will compa-

nies react to the changes. Since taxes on dividends dropped to 15% under President George

W Bush, dividends have slowly been trending higher. With higher dividend tax rates on the

horizon, companies issued special and accelerated dividend payments to 2012. Going further

out, will higher taxes make companies less open to raising payouts? Its likely.

Change (%) December 2012 December 2011

Consumer Discretionary -3.05 1.60 1.65

Consumer Staples 7.53 3.12 2.90

Energy 18.47 2.24 1.89

Financials 2.35 1.90 1.86

Health Care -4.98 2.10 2.21

Industrials 1.59 2.43 2.39

Materials 12.86 2.61 2.31

Technology 29.58 1.40 1.08

Telecom Svcs -10.76 4.70 5.27

Utilities 4.42 4.19 4.01

S&P 500 0.00 2.10 2.10

Change in Sector Dividend Yield: 2012 vs 2011


27/149

26



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Sentiment

Although the current bull market is approaching four years in duration, if you talk to the aver-

age investor, many will not even call it a bull market. In 2012, the S&P 500 was up by morethan 10%, but if you asked most casual observers how the market was doing, they would

probably tell you that it was flat, or maybe even down. Furthermore, while the S&P 500 has

yet to take out its 2007 highs in terms of price, on a total return basis, 2012 was the year

where the S&P 500 broke out to a new all-time high.

S&P 500 Total Return Index: 2004 - 2012

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

2,400

'04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12


28/149

27



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Sentiment

Individual investors are less connected to the market these days than they have probably been

in a generation, but after the events of the last few years, can you really blame them? Withtwo 50%+ haircuts in the S&P 500 over the last twelve years, countless scandals, and market

breakdowns, there is an attitude among most investors that the game is rigged against them.

Because of that attitude, they now have little to no faith in what were once highly regarded

institutions.

Just ten years ago, names like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Smith

Barney were considered the gold standard of and the smartest players within the financial ad-

visory industry. After the scandals and losses of the financial crisis, these firms have lost most

of their cachet. At the same time, the New York Stock Exchange was the pillar of strength in

the financial universe, and Dick Grasso was a household name. Today, the NYSE is in the proc-

ess of being acquired by the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which is an organization that did-nt even exist 20 years ago! Likewise, the Federal Reserve and its chairman is no longer re-

ferred to as the maestro, but instead Helicopter Ben.

After enduring the events of the last ten plus years, investors are in a bunker mentality where

they will slowly move into the market as it rises, but once even the slightest hint of trouble

arises, they are quick to get out.

The chart below is a composite index of market sentiment going back to 1990. For this index

we used all of the widely followed sentiment indices around today, and created a normalized

index of sentiment. In the chart, 100% represents average sentiment, so that readings below

100% indicate (red shading) that sentiment is below the historical average, while readings

above 100% are indicative of above average sentiment. As shown in the chart, outside of twobrief periods in this bull market, sentiment towards the equity market has been below aver-

age. In fact, the current stretch of below average sentiment has lasted longer than any other

period going back to 1990. Even during the financial crisis, the streak of below average senti-

ment was not as long.

Bespoke Composite Market Sentiment index: 1990 - 2012

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

'90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12


29/149

28



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Sentiment

Like the chart of market sentiment on page 27, the chart below is a composite index of eco-

nomic sentiment using widely followed economic sentiment indices. Some of the indices in-cluded in the index are Consumer Confidence, Michigan Confidence, and the NFIB Small Busi-

ness Optimism Index. Like market sentiment, economic sentiment has also been below aver-

age for an extended period of time. In fact, it has now been five years since economic senti-

ment was above average. Just like most investors still arent willing to say we are in a bull

market, most Americans still think the economy is in recession.

The chart below overlays our market and economic sentiment indices since the start of 2009.

The two key takeaways are that sentiment on both fronts remains depressed, and the two in-

dices track each other very closely. The only time they diverged meaningfully was in the late

Summer of 2012, when market sentiment improved as economic sentiment was depressed.

Not long after the S&P 500 peaked in mid September and sold off nearly 10%.

If youre a contrarian, current sentiment towards both the market and the economy should

have you gobbling up stocks like turkey on Thanksgiving!

Bespoke Composite Economic Sentiment index: 1990 - 2012

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

'90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12

Market vs Economic Sentiment: 2009 - 2012

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

1/09 7/09 1/10 7/10 1/11 7/11 1/12 7/12

Market Sentiment (Left Axis)

Economic Sentiment (Right Axis)


30/149

29



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

SentimentAlthough most measures of investor sentiment portray investors to be less bullish than aver-

age, short interest figures provide an alternate narrative. The charts below show the shortinterest as a percentage of float for the S&P 1500 (all caps), S&P 500 (large caps), S&P 400

(mid caps), and S&P 600 (small caps) going back to early 2007, before the onset of the Finan-

cial crisis.

Even though investors have yet to embrace the bull market after nearly four years of gains,

short interest has been in steady decline. For all four indices shown, short interest as a per-

centage of float dropped down to or neared multi-year lows at some point in 2012. Based on

this trend there appears to be a divergence between what investors are saying and actually

doing. Our view, however, is that the deviation represents apathy more than anything else.

As we highlighted earlier in the section, investors seem to be more disconnected to the mar-

kets today than at any other point in the last several years.S&P 1500 Short Interest (Percentage of Float): 2007 -

S&P 500 Short Interest (Percentage of Float): 2007 -



5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

1/07 1/08 1/09 1/10 1/11 1/12

5.8

3.25

3.75

4.25

4.75

5.25

5.75

6.25

1/07 1/08 1/09 1/10 1/11 1/12

3.9%

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

1/07 1/08 1/09 1/10 1/11 1/12

6.3%

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

1/07 1/08 1/09 1/10 1/11 1/12

7.1%


31/149

30



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

Unlike any other time in history, Washington DC is more involved in the American economy

than ever before. This is not a political statement, but simply a fact. The chart below showsthe historical share of total GDP that Federal government spending accounts for. After WWII

in 1947, the Federal government accounted for 15.8% of GDP, and except for a period from

the mid 1980s through 2001, this total has been in a steady ascent. As of the end of Q2 2012,

Federal spending now accounts for 23.8% of GDP, representing an increase of 51%!

As if the Federal total wasnt already large enough, when you add up government spending

from all sources as a percent of GDP, you get to a level of 34.8%. This represents an increase

of 72.6% from the 1947 level of 20.15%. For better or worse, government is becoming a larger

share of the US economy. At the rate things are going, this trend will only continue as govern-

ment spending balloons with increased Social Security and Medicare spending. Also, if inter-

est rates start to rise, the cost of servicing the debt load will surge.

Total Federal Government Spending (Percent of GDP): 1947 - 2012

23.78

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

'47 '52 '57 '62 '67 '72 '77 '82 '87 '92 '97 '02 '07 '12

Federal/GDP

Average Federal: 19.7%

Total Government Spending (Percent of GDP): 1947 - 2012

34.79

15

20

25

30

35

40

'47 '52 '57 '62 '67 '72 '77 '82 '87 '92 '97 '02 '07 '12

Total Govt/GDP

Average Total Government: 28.5%


32/149

31



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

In some respects, the large increase in government spending has been a buffer for the US

economy. Without much of the government expenditures we have seen in the last four years,some would argue that the economy and ultimately the market would be worse off and the

recession that began in late 2007 would have been much worse. Unlike the private sector,

government spending is not cyclical so you can argue that is helps to smooth the business cy-

cle. That may be true, but the other side of the argument is that government spending is less

productive than private sector spending, so when government crowds out the private sector,

you get anemic growth like we have seen during the current economic recovery off the June

2009 trough.

Whatever side of the argument you take on spending and political ideology, US equities have

performed well during President Obamas first term. With a gain of 63.7% (through 12/30),only four other Presidents have seen a better stock market return during their first 1,440 days

in office. Those four Presidents were evenly split between Republicans (Coolidge & Eisen-

hower) and Democrats (FDR & Clinton).

President Start

T Roosevelt 9/14/01

Taft 3/4/09

Wilson 3/4/13

Harding* 3/4/21

Coolidge 8/2/23

Hoover 3/4/29

FDR 3/4/33

Truman 4/12/45

Eisenhower 1/20/53

JFK* 1/20/61

Johnson 11/22/63

Nixon 1/20/69

Ford* 8/9/74

Carter 1/20/77

Reagan 1/20/81

Bush I 1/20/89

Clinton 1/20/93

Bush II 1/20/01

Obama 1/20/09

*President in Office Less Than 1,368 Years. Performance Shown measures, President's total time in office.

= Republicans = Democrats

Percent Change (%) Percent Change (%)

DJIA Performance During First 1,440 Days of a President's Term: 1900 - 2012

-81.1

-150 -100 -50 0

63.7

2.0

102.0

48.6

26.7

0.3

23.8

9.5

21.9

12.2

72.4

10.3

96.3

17.4

13.4

0.5

22.8

0 50 100 150

246.5


33/149

32



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

Taking a look at the returns of the DJIA during each US Presidents entire term shows a similar

picture. Of the eleven Republican US Presidents since 1900, the DJIA has averaged an annual-ized return of 3.0%. Under the eight Democratic US Presidents, the DJIA has now averaged an

annualized return of 6.9%, or more than twice the average annualized return of Republicans.

Even though it is Republicans who are more often considered to be better for business, based

on the returns of the DJIA over Obamas first 1,440 days in office and the average returns un-

der Democratic Presidents since 1900, equities have historically preferred the spending ten-

dencies of Democrats.

The argument can be made that you cant just look at the returns of a President while he was

in office as it often takes time for a Presidents policies to take effect and for the policies of the

prior Administration to wear off. Just as Democrats argue that you cant pin the job losses ofObamas first few months in office on him, Republicans argue that the market was so far down

when Obama took office that all it could do was go up. No method no matter how consis-

tently applied is perfect, so there will always be detractors, but the method we used was con-

sistent for each President, so its hard to argue that this method favored any one specific

party.

President Start End Change as President Annualized Return

T Roosevelt 9/14/01 3/4/09 21.6 2.7

Taft 3/4/09 3/4/13 -1.3 -0.3

Wilson 3/4/13 3/4/21 -6.9 -0.9

Harding 3/4/21 8/2/23 17.4 6.9

Coolidge 8/2/23 3/4/29 255.9 25.5

Hoover 3/4/29 3/4/33 -82.8 -35.6

FDR 3/4/33 4/12/45 194.4 9.3

Truman 4/12/45 1/20/53 81.7 8.0

Eisenhower 1/20/53 1/20/61 120.3 10.4

JFK 1/20/61 11/22/63 12.2 4.1

Johnson 11/22/63 1/20/69 30.9 5.3

Nixon 1/20/69 8/9/74 -16.5 -3.2

Ford 8/9/74 1/20/77 23.4 8.9

Carter 1/20/77 1/20/81 -0.9 -0.2

Reagan 1/20/81 1/20/89 135.1 11.3

Bush I 1/20/89 1/20/93 45.0 9.7

Clinton 1/20/93 1/20/01 226.6 15.9

Bush II 1/20/01 1/20/09 -24.9 -3.5

Obama 1/20/09 12/27/12 63.7 13.3

Average 57.6 4.6

Average Republican 44.8 3.0

Average Democratic 75.2 6.9

DJIA Returns Under US Presidents Since 1900

DJIA Percent Change (%)


34/149

33



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

As mentioned earlier in this section, there have only been four US Presidents since 1900 that

saw a better DJIA performance during their first term than President Obama. Of those four,Coolidge was the only President who was not elected to his first term as he came into office

following the death of Warren Harding.

For the remaining three Presidents, we analyzed the DJIAs performance during their second

term in office and found mixed results. The charts below highlight the performance of the

DJIA during each of those three periods as well as the performance of the DJIA during each

year of the Presidents second term in office. As shown in the table and the charts, during the

first year of these three second terms, the DJIA averaged a decline of 7.6% with losses two out

of the three times. Although the first year of these three terms was biased towards the weak

side, the second year was positive for all three Presidents with an average return of 23.2%. Inthe third year, returns were generally good with an average return of 11.0%, but in year four

the DJIA declined each time for an average loss of 8.0%. For each of the four-year terms, the

DJIA has averaged a gain of 10.4% with positive returns two-thirds of the time. We would

note, though, that for each term, however, the market was either up or down ~30% or more.

DJIA: 1/20/37 - 1/20/41 (FDR)

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

1/19/37 1/19/38 1/19/39 1/19/40 1/19/41

DJIA: 1/21/57 - 1/20/61 (Eisenhower)

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

1/18/57 1/18/58 1/18/59 1/18/60 1/18/61

DJIA: 1/20/97 - 1/20/01 (Clinton)

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1/17/97 1/17/98 1/17/99 1/17/00 1/17/01

First Term

President Political Party All 4 Years 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Entire Term

FDR Democrat 241.8 -29.3 14.9 -2.4 -11.4 -29.8

Ei senhow er Republ ican 66.4 -7.0 34.1 9.8 -3.0 32.9

Clinton Democrat 109.9 13.5 20.5 25.5 -9.7 55.0

Average -7.6 23.2 11.0 -8.0 19.4

DJIA Performance (%)

2nd Term


35/149

34



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

Looking at second terms from a wider angle, we analyzed the performance of the DJIA during

the second electedterm of US Presidents who were elected to office two or more times since1900. This is a modified look at the Presidential Election Cycle using second terms only. For

the purpose of this analysis, we omitted Presidents who served shortened first terms due to

the fact that they were unelected to office during their 1st term (T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Tru-

man, and Johnson). Since 1900, there are now eight US Presidents who have been re-elected

to office, which we have highlighted in the table below (charts of each second term are on

page 35). For each President, we have also listed how the DJIA performed during their 1st

term in office as well as the indexs performance during each year of their second terms.

Of the seven US Presidents highlighted above, George W. Bush is the only one who was re-

elected after the market declined during his first term in office (-0.4%). For all seven Presi-

dents, the DJIA averaged a gain of 67% during their 1st term in office. Although voters were

happy to re-elect these Presidents based on their 1st term market returns, a sense of buyers

remorse most certainly followed suit. During the first year of their second terms, the DJIA has

averaged a decline of 3.8% with positive returns just 43% of the time.

Year two for two-termers has tended to see a rebound, as the DJIAs average return has been

+17%. In fact, Richard Nixon, who resigned during year two of his 2nd term, was the only one

who saw a decline during year two of his 2nd term.

While year three of a second term averages a gain of 5.2%, year four has been a disaster. For

the six Presidents who made it to year four of their second term (Nixon resigned), the DJIA av-

eraged a decline of 10.4% with positive returns just 17% of the time. Only Reagan saw a gain

during his final year in office. Overall, the DJIA has averaged a gain of just 10.2% during the

second term of US Presidents who were re-elected to office. Even in this low rate environ-

ment, an annualized return of less than 2.5% is hardly anything to get excited about.

First Term

President Political Party All 4 Years 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Entire Term

Wilson Democrat 15.1 -15.6 8.4 7.1 -18.1 -19.8

FDR Democrat 241.8 -29.3 14.9 -2.4 -11.4 -29.8

Eisenhower Republican 66.4 -7.0 34.1 9.8 -3.0 32.9

Nixon Republican 9.7 -16.6 -9.1 -24.3

Reagan Republican 26.4 25.2 35.1 -5.4 13.8 82.1

Clinton Democrat 109.9 13.5 20.5 25.5 -9.7 55.0

Bush Republican -0.4 3.2 15.5 -3.7 -34.3 -24.6

Obama Democrat 63.7

Average 66.6 -3.8 17.1 5.2 -10.5 10.2

Percent of Time Positive 85.7 42.9 85.7 50.0 16.7 42.9

DJIA Performance During Re-Elected Presidents Second Terms: 1900 - 2012

2nd Term

DJIA Performance (%)


36/149

35



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

DJIA: 3/5/17 - 3/4/21 (Wilson) DJIA: 1/20/37 - 1/20/41 (FDR)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

3/3/17 3/3/18 3/3/19 3/3/20 3/3/21

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

1/19/37 1/19/38 1/19/39 1/19/40 1/19/41

DJIA: 1/21/57 - 1/20/61 (Eisenhower) DJIA: 1/20/73 - 1/20/77 (Nixon)

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

1/18/57 1/18/58 1/18/59 1/18/60 1/18/61

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

1/19/73 1/19/74 1/19/75 1/19/76 1/19/77

Nixon

Resignation:

8/9/74

DJIA: 1/20/97 - 1/20/01 (Clinton)DJIA: 1/21/85 - 1/20/89 (Reagan)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1/18/85 1/18/86 1/18/87 1/18/88 1/18/89

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1/17/97 1/17/98 1/17/99 1/17/00 1/17/01

DJIA: 1/20/05 - 1/20/09 (Bush II)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

1/19/05 1/19/06 1/19/07 1/19/08 1/19/09

The charts below show the performance of the DJIA during the second terms of the re-elected

US Presidents highlighted on page 34.


37/149

36



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

On page 38 we have broken out the performance of the S&P 500 and each individual sector

during each session of Congress from 1961 through the present. In addition to the ten sectors,we have also included the performance of the Transportation sector since up until just a little

over ten years ago, it too was also a sector. The graphic provides a handy reference tool to

quickly assess which sectors did what under different political scenarios.

In the table below we have summarized the performance of the S&P 500 and all ten sectors

under various political scenarios (President, Senate, House) sorted horizontally from most fre-

quent to least frequent. As shown, the two most popular scenarios we have seen are full De-

mocratic Control (eight sessions) and a split between a Republican President and Democratic

Control of both the Senate and House.

Prior to 2011, the current political makeup of Democratic control of the Presidency and Senate

and Republican control of the House had never happened before. Through December 20th,

this split Congress under a Democratic President has worked out pretty well as the S&P 500

has risen 12.0% through 12/27, with nine out of ten sectors advancing (Materials down 2%).

The best performing sectors under this scenario have been Health Care (26.1%), Consumer

Discretionary (24.8%), and Consumer Staples (18.2%).

Control DDD RDD RRD DRR RRR RDR DDR

Congresses 8 8 3 3 2 1 1S&P 500 17.8 7.6 22.4 44.9 27.4 -33.4 12.0

Cons Discret. 35.4 13.5 56.4 37.9 30.6 -23.0 24.8

Cons Staples 10.7 24.8 46.2 37.3 14.5 -14.1 18.2

Energy 31.8 7.9 13.6 34.8 57.7 -24.0 4.0

Financials 12.4 0.5 32.4 61.0 29.5 -25.2 1.6

Health Care 16.8 16.3 39.3 68.3 12.2 -30.3 26.1

Industrials 20.0 7.8 21.7 42.9 30.9 -32.6 7.8

Materials 13.9 7.6 33.6 10.7 33.8 -6.8 -2.0

Technology 33.1 -0.6 17.5 77.3 28.9 -53.8 12.9

Telecom Svcs 0.3 6.7 31.0 36.6 20.0 -44.7 12.6

Transports 27.6 9.3 27.2 29.4 42.2 -21.6 2.0Utilities 5.2 0.6 22.4 29.3 38.3 -54.7 10.5

= Current Makeup

= Makeup With Best Returns for Sector

= Makeup With Worst Returns for Sector

S&P 500 Sector Performance Based on Political Makeup


38/149

37



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

Looking at all the various sector performance characteristics based on political control, the ta-

ble below lists average sector performance when either Democrats or Republicans control thePresidency, the Senate, and the House. Based on average returns, the current political

makeup looks positive for equities. For the Presidency, the S&P 500 typically does best when

a Democrat is President with an average return of 24.1% vs. 10.7% when a Republican is Presi-

dent. In the Senate, the S&P 500 has historically done better when the Republican party is in

control (32.1% vs. 10.1%). Finally, in the House, the S&P 500 has averaged a gain of 24.1%

when Republicans are in control and a gain of 14.2% when Democrats are in control.

Based on the election results in November, the political makeup in Washington is best for the

market in terms of the party controlling the Presidency and the House. It would have been the

best of all worlds had Republicans gained control of the Senate, but two out of three isnt bad.

The last two months of 2012 have been a period where the investment community focused

more on Washington than ever before. If there is a smooth resolution to the fiscal cliff early in

2013, the investment community may breathe a big sigh of relief, but based on the experience

of the last few years, and the governments increasingly large role in the economy, we would

expect events in Washington to continue to play an abnormally large role in the markets be-havior.

With respect to Washington, the short term issue is the resolution of the fiscal cliff. On a

longer term basis, investors need to monitor governments share of the economy as well as

the tendency for problems to arise as second term administrations have tended to lose focus.

Sector Democrat Republican Democratic Republican Democratic Republican

Cons Discret. 35.2 22.5 21.9 43.0 29.5 25.4

Technology 42.5 3.7 12.2 42.8 16.5 35.6

Energy 30.3 14.0 16.6 32.6 18.9 28.7

Health Care 30.7 17.3 14.6 43.4 20.2 32.5

Transports 26.0 15.7 15.4 31.8 19.9 21.9

Cons Staples 18.3 25.1 16.2 35.0 22.2 21.3

Financials 23.5 9.6 4.3 42.4 10.5 30.9

Industrials 24.8 11.2 11.0 32.0 15.2 23.7Materials 11.5 15.9 8.9 25.0 14.3 12.6

Utilities 11.8 6.7 0.2 29.0 6.0 17.4

Telecom Svcs 10.5 10.1 1.4 30.3 7.8 17.0

S&P 500 24.1 10.7 10.1 32.1 14.2 24.1

President Senate House

Average Sector Performance Based on Party Control in Washington: 1961 - 2012


39/149

38



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

StartYear

1961

1963

196

5

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

197

9

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

President

D

D

D

D

R

R

R

R

D

D

R

R

R

R

R

R

D

D

D

D

R

R

R

R

D

D

Senate

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

R

R

R

D

D

D

D

R

R

R

D

R

R

D

D

D

House

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

R

R

R

R

R

R

D

D

R

1961

1963

196

5

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

197

9

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

S&P500

8.6

34.3

-5.

2

29.3

-11.3

28.1

-41.9

56.7

-10.6

41.3

3.6

18.9

44.8

14.7

18.9

31.9

5.4

61.3

65.9

7.4

-33.4

37.7

17.0

-36.3

39.2

12.0

ConsDiscret.

22.2

70.7

-6.

1

111.0

-8.4

27.6

-65.0

115.2

-10.6

19.7

74.6

26.6

68.1

9.7

10.2

62.4

1.7

30.7

84.7

-1.7

-23.0

52.6

8.6

-44.1

74.5

24.8

ConsStaples

5.3

21.7

-4.

2

42.9

13.8

37.7

-43.8

48.3

-1.6

-1.8

39.4

21.1

78.1

39.4

68.4

42.6

0.1

67.8

48.6

-4.5

-14.1

15.8

13.3

-8.1

23.1

18.2

Energy

32.7

44.8

-11

.3

33.4

-18.6

16.8

-24.6

55.1

-4.2

117.4

-34.9

38.4

37.3

21.0

28.8

0.0

10.7

53.4

19.6

31.3

-24.0

57.6

57.8

-15.2

31.2

4.0

Financials

30.2

16.0

-11

.3

38.7

-5.7

34.8

-29.1

18.1

-19.6

16.9

29.4

12.2

55.6

-13.2

-7.3

72.2

0.9

97.3

59.3

26.3

-25.2

38.5

20.5

-65.9

27.2

1.6

HealthCare

-1.4

33.4

27.5

29.3

16.0

52.7

-26.4

-4.3

-3.4

33.0

13.6

16.0

88.2

22.4

67.5

23.0

-1.9

83.5

101.6

19.8

-30.3

13.6

10.9

-20.4

17.9

26.1

Industrials

7.3

35.8

-4.

9

32.6

-10.7

30.7

-42.0

56.2

-10.3

44.1

2.1

18.2

44.8

19.0

10.7

34.5

10.3

66.8

36.6

25.4

-32.6

50.4

11.4

-35.8

45.3

7.8

Materials

12.8

34.1

-29

.4

15.4

-19.1

38.1

-25.9

52.5

-30.2

19.9

-7.0

9.7

98.2

17.1

3.9

30.3

14.2

33.0

-2.2

1.2

-6.8

49.3

18.2

-36.5

74.1

-2.0

Technology

-2.2

30.8

40.3

72.0

-4.4

33.3

-50.1

55.0

6.9

-1.1

20.7

21.8

10.0

2.4

-13.0

7.2

43.5

98.8

127.6

5.3

-53.8

49.7

8.1

-34.9

74.5

12.9

TelecomS

vcs

9.2

19.3

-16

.4

-1.6

-9.8

7.0

-20.8

46.4

-5.1

-19.8

24.0

24.2

44.7

13.1

26.0

19.8

1.5

34.3

104.7

-29.2

-44.7

19.8

20.2

-28.0

15.3

12.6

Transports

7.8

45.6

-1.

2

33.8

-36.8

32.4

-36.9

65.2

-12.9

92.7

12.6

24.5

44.6

20.2

-6.1

59.2

0.4

55.0

39.6

-6.4

-21.6

64.4

20.1

-22.4

54.9

2.0

Utilities

29.2

20.1

-12

.2

0.7

-11.2

-1.9

-42.5

57.6

-9.4

16.5

4.4

25.2

37.8

-9.6

16.5

16.4

-10.7

25.4

30.3

32.2

-54.7

44.8

31.8

-20.7

7.7

10.5

S&P500

Y/Y(%)

PartiesControllingOfficea

ndYear/YearS&P500Performance:1961-2012

Obama

Bush

Carter

Reagan

Reagan

Bush

Clinton

Clinton

JFK/LBJ

Jo

hnson

Nixon

Nixon/Ford

Bush

-600

60

'61

'65

'69

'73

'77

'81

'85

'89

'93

'97

'01

'05

'09


40/149

39



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

As noted earlier, the fiscal cliff provides a perfect example of how Washington is playing a lar-

ger role in the market and broader economy than nearly any other variable. To illustrate this,we wanted to focus on the NFIB Small Business Optimism, which was released in mid-

December. In that report, the headline reading fell from 93.1 down to 87.5 for a decline of

6%. Since the NFIB began releasing the results of this survey on a monthly basis in 1986, there

has never been a larger monthly drop. The only other time the index saw a larger decline was

back in April 1980 when the index saw a 13% drop from its January 1980 reading three months

prior. As shown in the chart below, in the nearly forty years that this index has been in exis-

tence, the only three prior periods where the index was below 90 was in 1974, 1980, and dur-

ing the Financial Crisis. Furthermore, all of these periods occurred during recessions.

In each months NFIB survey, small business owners are

asked what the single most important problem they

face is. In this months survey, Poor Sales and Taxes

were tied at the top of the list with 23%. Third on the

list, though, at 18%, was Government Requirements

and Red Tape. The impact of Hurricane Sandy has been

cited as a reason for Poor Sales as the number one

problem, but the real standout in this table is Taxes and

Govt Requirements. Combined, these two Washington

centered problems account for 41% of the total responses. At current levels, the combined

reading of Taxes and Government Requirements is at multi-year highs.

Ever since the election, we have been hearing about the potential what if negative scenarios

of going over the fiscal cliff. Based on the large decline in the Michigan Confidence Expecta-

tions Index earlier in December as well as Decembers record monthly decline in the NFIB

Small Business Optimism Index, those what ifs may already be what is, and they illustrate that

right now, rather than solving problems, Washington is the problem.

NFIB Small Business Optimism Index: 1974 - 2012

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

'74 '79 '84 '89 '94 '99 '04 '09

-6%

Problem Percent

Poor Sales 23

Taxes 23

Govt Requirements & Red Tape 18

Cost/Availability of Insurance 7

Inflation 6

Quality of Labor 6

Competition From Big Businesses 5

Other 5

Cost of Labor 4

Fin & Interest Rates 3

NFIB Single Most Important Problem


41/149

40



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

Washington

Decembers release of the final Michigan Confidence report provides evidence of how the fis-

cal cliff is impacting not only business behavior but also the actions of individuals. Decembersrelease of the final confidence reading for December showed considerable weakness. Not

only was the headline number worse than expected, but the expectations component declined

even more.

Decembers 13.8% decline in the expectations components of the Michigan Confidence report

ranks as the third steepest one month decline for the index since at least 1979. If you are

looking for any indication of whether or not the Fiscal Cliff negotiations are having (or willhave) an impact on the economy, the expectations component illustrates that consumers are

not very optimistic that there will be a smooth process in reaching a deal.

While negative sentiment may be considered a good

contrary indicator, history shows that large drops in

the expectations component of the Michigan Confi-

dence report have been followed by weaker than aver-

age equity market returns. After the nine prior periods

where expectations dropped by more than ten per-

centage points, the S&P 500 has averaged a decline of0.4% over the next three months, and then gains of

just 1.6% and 4.3% over the next six months and one

year, respectively. In terms of the frequency of posi-

tive returns, over the next one and three months, the

S&P 500 has only been positive 44.6% of the time,

while the S&P 500 has been up two-thirds of the time one year later.

Michigan Confidence: 2000 - 2012

72.9

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

'00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12

Mi chi gan Confi de nce (Current Condi ti ons): 200 0 - 2 012 Mic hi gan Confi de nc e (Expec tions): 20 00 - 20 12

87

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

'00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12

63.8

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

'00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10 '12

Date Decl ine 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year

12/31/80 -16.5 0.6 -4.4 -9.7

8/31/90 -14.4 -0.1 14.9 22.6

12/31/12 -13.8

3/31/11 -13.7 -0.4 -12.5 6.2

9/30/05 -13.6 1.6 5.4 8.7

9/30/01 -11.7 11.5 10.2 -21.72/29/04 -11.6 -2.1 -3.2 5.1

12/31/00 -10.9 -12.1 -7.3 -13.0

3/31/80 -10.6 11.9 21.0 33.2

10/31/08 -10.2 -14.7 -9.4 7.0

Average 1.4 3.0 3.9

% Positive 44.4 44.4 66.7

S&P 500 Performance (%)

Large Drops in Consumer Expectations


42/149

41



BespokeIn

vestmentGroup

SeasonalityIndices, Sectors, and Commodities

As we do each year, in this section we highlight the typical seasonal patterns for the S&P 500

(large cap), S&P 400 (mid cap), and Russell 2000 (small caps). We have also calculated the av-erage monthly returns for the ten S&P 500 sectors (and DJ Transports) and some major com-

modities. For each index, we provide a graph of the average pattern since 1980, the average

change over the prior five years (20072011), and 2012. Below each chart we also include

the average performance during each month.

The table below summarizes the average monthly returns since 1980 for each of the indices/

sectors/commodities on the following pages. For each category, green shading highlights the

month of the year which has historically been the best, while red shading indicates the month

of the year which has traditionally been the worst. Using the S&P 500 as an example, April has

been the indexs best month since 1980 with an average return of 1.78%, while September has

been the worst with an average return of 0.82%.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

S&P 500 0.97 -0.04 0.98 1.78 1.13 0.00 0.56 0.05 -0.82 1.16 1.52 1.63

Mid Caps (since 1981) 0.63 1.09 1.79 1.94 1.59 0.02 -0.07 0.39 -0.68 0.38 1.66 3.07

Russell 2000 1.45 1.12 0.97 1.90 1.61 0.18 -0.60 0.03 -0.57 -0.22 1.60 2.69

Consumer Discretionary 0.96 1.55 2.80 2.25 2.39 0.09 -0.50 -0.20 -0.95 0.80 1.98 0.92

Consumer Staples -0.74 0.78 1.49 1.17 2.18 0.64 0.58 0.80 -0.04 2.10 1.85 1.52

Energy 0.19 1.18 1.97 3.13 1.23 -0.48 0.69 0.46 -0.15 0.52 0.68 1.49

Financials 0.29 0.03 1.91 2.86 1.57 -0.72 -0.18 0.10 -0.88 0.40 1.24 1.90

Health Care 0.99 -0.12 0.78 1.63 1.54 1.06 0.19 0.52 0.39 1.17 2.25 1.68

Industrials 0.60 0.24 1.57 2.51 0.99 -0.34 0.57 -0.25 -0.99 0.47 1.92 2.33

Materials -0.12 1.71 1.74 2.80 1.07 -0.67 0.40 0.35 -2.69 -0.06 2.42 2.0

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ethan-lapenti
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

2013 Bespoke Report

Documents