Strategy

In 2009, U.S. stock markets were able to rise despite a substantial fund flow headwind. It's hard to see how mere 'liquidity' could have driven the 2009 rally, as some skeptics claim. At least based on ICI data, U.S. equity fund flows were negative for the year.

Rather, the 2009 rally was probably more the result of sellers becoming unwilling to sell at lower price levels. While buying demand was diminishing, selling demand at lower price levels was probably drying up at an even faster rate. Thus prices had to rise in order to clear the market.

The combination of a rising market with negative fund flows is an encouraging sign for the future. Guess what could happen if fund flows significantly reverse and become a positive tailwind.

Read more at The Money Game.

Note the most recent weekly fund flow uptick:

Longer-term perspective:

Even longer term:

 Sometimes "professional" investment research resembles little more than a day trader rag with nicer charts and fancier wording to make the reader feel less guilty and more professional about the kind of "investing" he or she is actually performing. Thus we point to Goldman's recent China "Portfolio Strategy" dated July 31st where they tell us to basically keep buying the Chinese market based on government support for the economy and a "favorable liquidity setup". We're told to buy on dips, "stay engaged" (ie. keep generating commissions), and trade earnings suprises. Is this professional investing or what your college roommate was doing during the dotcom bubble? It's hard to tell the difference.

Market view: Stay invested; buy on dips for new money A-share market gained 12.4% in July despite a 5.3% correction, which was provoked by concerns regarding credit tightening, on July 29. We maintain our positive market view on A shares and think the government’s pro-growth policy stance, which should ultimately lead to macro/earnings recovery and a favorable liquidity setup, will continue to bode well for equities.That said, we see price volatility nudging higher as uncertainties revolving around interim earnings and the government’s monetary policy stance intersect with an above-mid-cycle multiple (24x). We would stay engaged in the market and look for opportunities to accumulate positions on dips.

Strategies: Domestic demand exposure; Trade earnings surprises We recommend investors to focus on the following themes to gain exposure to the A-share market: (1) Laggards with valuation buffers and reasonable EPS growth; (2) Pro-cyclical domestic demand, which includes banks, insurance, property, and selected consumer and materials names; (3) Stocks that are potentially subject to positive earnings surprises.

That's the front page: trust the government to support the market, trust dumber investors to follow you (liquidity) and try to make little earnings trades hoping for pops. Oh wait. What about valuations?

Valuations: Above mid-cycle, but may persist CSI300 is now trading at around 23.9x I/B/E/S consensus P/E and 3.2X P/B on a 12-month forward basis against an average of 18.9x and 2.0x since April 2005, respectively (see Exhibits 1 and 2). On the basis that FY09 EPS growth for the aggregate market could be lower than the 15% that I/B/E/S consensus is currently forecasting, the forward P/E for CSI300 would be even higher at around 26.6x using our FY09 EPS growth assumption of - 5%. July 31, 2009

So valuations are sky high and earnings estimates might be missed. But we should hang on, because high valuations may persist. That's our upside investment case. High valuations may persist... and actually need to go higher or have upside earnings surprises to really give us upside on stock prices since they are already stretched as it is. Also, note that they compare recent valuation multiples to the average since... only 2005.. which was still a pretty bullish period for Chinese equities. So valuations are stretched even above what we saw during a pretty bullish time for China, but we should just have confidence in the government and liquidity to keep pushing things higher. This is what we are made to believe is "professional investing" rather than a gambler's punting.