'Quantamental' Japan Specialist, LightStream Research

Campbell Gunn

'Quantamental' Japan Specialist

Long-Short Analysis on Japan, Asia and the World

LightStream Research

LightStream conducts quantitatively rigorous and data-driven analysis with a focus on Japan and Asia.

We consistently cover the Tech, Consumer and Industrial sectors, and provide ECM and Events coverage more broadly.

We supplement traditional qualitative insights from company relationships with a robust quantitative foundation that examines as much historical data as is available.
We further refine the accuracy of our insights and calls through the use of alternative data to flesh out current trends, and through a valuation framework that emphasises non-superficial peer group selection and a proper attempt to understand the metrics and changes that have driven security valuations in the past.

Quantitative Analysis

<div>
• RELATIVE PRICE SCORE •
<figure class="editor-figure mceNonEditable"><img src="https://static-prod.smartkarma.com/images/media/000/160/735/original/2020-09-23_11-03-49.png?1600826665" class="editor-image img-responsive" data-smartkarma-image-id="160735"></figure><div class="content-caption">Source for all charts &amp; tables: Japan Analytics</div>
<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/6h3m1giwbtzcupg/2020-09-23_11-03-49.png?dl=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PEAK OUTLIER</a> - Since the onset of  COVID-19 in March, the degree of polarisation in the Japanese equity market as measured by our Relative Price Score [definition below] has increased significantly. Although only 3.1% and 5.1% of listed companies are Overbought and Oversold, respectively, their market weight represented is 10.8% and 6.2%. Such extreme outlier weightings have not occurred since the technology 'bubble' of 2000, and, since then, only during the 2008/9 financial crisis. Investors have increasingly held and bid up perceived long-term domestic non-manufacturing 'winners' without much regard for valuation while discarding Japan's manufacturers, and transportation, utility and energy companies as well as insurers and banks.  
<figure class="editor-figure mceNonEditable"><img src="https://static-prod.smartkarma.com/images/media/000/160/736/original/2020-09-23_11-11-07.png?1600827080" class="editor-image img-responsive" data-smartkarma-image-id="160736"></figure>
</div>SECTOR TIMELINE - The twenty-eight-year history of Sector Relative Price Scores illustrates the ebbs and flows of investment themes in the market, from the 2000 Technology 'bubble' to the REIT and Real Estate peak of 2013/14, the Healthcare and FB&amp;T market of 2016/17. On the downside, there is greater Oversold 'persistence' in the Energy, Banks, Multi-Industry ( <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/japan-post-holdings-co-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:359:1" rel="noopener">Japan Post (6178 JP))</a>  and Utilities Sectors. Currently, nine Sectors are Overbought, and four are Oversold - thirty-year and twenty-year highs, respectively.  <figure class="editor-figure mceNonEditable"><img src="https://static-prod.smartkarma.com/images/media/000/160/741/original/2020-09-23_11-39-24.png?1600828791" class="editor-image img-responsive" data-smartkarma-image-id="160741"></figure>In the DETAIL section below, we provide an update on  Sector, Peer Group and individual company Relative Price Score trends and outliers and make some stock-specific comments.<div class="content-highlight">RELATIVE PRICE SCORE OUTLIERS - The Relative Price Score (RPS) is a measure of price performance relative to TOPIX calculated by comparing the current deviation with the mean absolute deviation of monthly and daily relative share prices over the last 28 years and 24 months, respectively. As all companies on a comparable scale, 'Overbought' and 'Oversold' outliers and short-term changes in scoring can offer some trading opportunities. The data for all 3,883 currently-listed Companies is cap-weight-aggregated into Relative Price Scores for our 328 Peer Groups and 30 Sectors. The Overbought and Oversold outlier 'thresholds are set' at +4 &amp; -2 for Companies, +3 &amp; -1.5 for Peer Groups and +2 and -1 for Sectors, respectively. These thresholds equate with the top and bottom percentiles of over 3.2 million observations.</div>


• RELATIVE PRICE SCORE •
Source for all charts &amp; tables: Japan Analytics
PEAK OUTLIER - Since the onset of  COVID-19 in March, the degree of polarisation in the Japanese equity market as measured by our Relative Price Score [definition below] has increased significantly. Although only 3.1% and 5.1% of listed companies are Overbought and Oversold, respectively, their market weight represented is 10.8% and 6.2%. Such extreme outlier weightings have not occurred since the technology 'bubble' of 2000, and, since then, only during the 2008/9 financial crisis. Investors have increasingly held and bid up perceived long-term domestic non-manufacturing 'winners' without much regard for valuation while discarding Japan's manufacturers, and transportation, utility and energy companies as well as insurers and banks.  

SECTOR TIMELINE - The twenty-eight-year history of Sector Relative Price Scores illustrates the ebbs and flows of investment themes in the market, from the 2000 Technology 'bubble' to the REIT and Real Estate peak of 2013/14, the Healthcare and FB&amp;T market of 2016/17. On the downside, there is greater Oversold 'persistence' in the Energy, Banks, Multi-Industry ( Japan Post (6178 JP))  and Utilities Sectors. Currently, nine Sectors are Overbought, and four are Oversold - thirty-year and twenty-year highs, respectively.  In the DETAIL section below, we provide an update on  Sector, Peer Group and individual company Relative Price Score trends and outliers and make some stock-specific comments.RELATIVE PRICE SCORE OUTLIERS - The Relative Price Score (RPS) is a measure of price performance relative to TOPIX calculated by comparing the current deviation with the mean absolute deviation of monthly and daily relative share prices over the last 28 years and 24 months, respectively. As all companies on a comparable scale, 'Overbought' and 'Oversold' outliers and short-term changes in scoring can offer some trading opportunities. The data for all 3,883 currently-listed Companies is cap-weight-aggregated into Relative Price Scores for our 328 Peer Groups and 30 Sectors. The Overbought and Oversold outlier 'thresholds are set' at +4 &amp; -2 for Companies, +3 &amp; -1.5 for Peer Groups and +2 and -1 for Sectors, respectively. These thresholds equate with the top and bottom percentiles of over 3.2 million observations.

🇯🇵 JAPAN • September Relative Price Scores - Profiting from Outlier Mean Reversion

Independent Asian Credit Research, Bondcritic

Warut Promboon

Independent Asian Credit Research

Asian Fixed Income/Frontier Market Research

Bondcritic

Bondcritic, established in 2009, is designed to be an independent credit research voice that helps investors gain insights and unbiased analyses on Asian fixed income market. Our mission is to discover deep-value Asian high-yield and distressed bonds with a bottom-up approach, together with the help of our proprietary ESG (Environmental, Social Development, and Governance) model. At the same time, we focus on bringing investment cases of unrated and unloved issuers to the general public.

Thematic (Sector/Industry)

In this Smartkarma Original, we seek to study how diversity and incentives influence stock performance and profitability. We tallied diversity and incentive data related to the board of directors, management, and employees across major economies in Asia and picked top 10 companies of each country in terms of market capitalization. We chose to exclude major companies listed in exchanges of other economies such as Tencent and Alibaba to limit our sample size.
Then we devised diversity and incentive scores to assign to those companies and compare those scores against a 5-year trend of their return on shareholders’ equity (ROE) ratios and 1-year stock performance from 1-July-19 to 30-June-20 over its corresponding exchange indices.
The report covers diversity vs. incentives in Asia, diversity score vs. 1-year stock performance and ROE trend, incentives vs. 1-year stock performance and ROE trend, diversity + incentives scores vs. 1-year stock performance and ROE trend, companies with top and bottom diversity + incentive scores, countries with top and bottom average diversity + incentive scores, and incentive score vs. staffing cost trend. 
The results show that companies with high diversity scores do perform well. A high diversity score also has a positive impact on the ROE trend, based on our regression analysis at 95% confidence level. We found that employee incentives are not significant as staff diversity but they can still have an influence on company performances at a lower 90% confidence level.
We note that this study is at the preliminary stage and stock performance is a function of many factors, not only the diversity scores that we concluded. Needless to say, our diversity and incentive scores also reflect the level of disclosures by selected companies, not necessarily the actual practice within each company. Our diversity and incentive scores are also not a credit rating or ranking with peers and, hence, do not reflect default probability of selected companies.
We caution that in Asia, many diversity trends in the West may not apply. The fact that many Asian business communities may remain less sensitive to equal opportunities for females, disabled persons, or LGBTQ communities could make returns of Asian companies less correlated to diversity than in the West. Likewise, additional incentives in some countries in Asia may not be necessary as employees’ strong performance (i.e. in Japan) is a norm, according to the prevalent work culture.
Bondcritic is developing a scoring model, which includes environment, social development, and corporate governance; the last of which cover diversity and incentives. This report is the first of the series to uncover shenanigans in the Asian corporate sector.

In this Smartkarma Original, we seek to study how diversity and incentives influence stock performance and profitability. We tallied diversity and incentive data related to the board of directors, management, and employees across major economies in Asia and picked top 10 companies of each country in terms of market capitalization. We chose to exclude major companies listed in exchanges of other economies such as Tencent and Alibaba to limit our sample size.
Then we devised diversity and incentive scores to assign to those companies and compare those scores against a 5-year trend of their return on shareholders’ equity (ROE) ratios and 1-year stock performance from 1-July-19 to 30-June-20 over its corresponding exchange indices.
The report covers diversity vs. incentives in Asia, diversity score vs. 1-year stock performance and ROE trend, incentives vs. 1-year stock performance and ROE trend, diversity + incentives scores vs. 1-year stock performance and ROE trend, companies with top and bottom diversity + incentive scores, countries with top and bottom average diversity + incentive scores, and incentive score vs. staffing cost trend. 
The results show that companies with high diversity scores do perform well. A high diversity score also has a positive impact on the ROE trend, based on our regression analysis at 95% confidence level. We found that employee incentives are not significant as staff diversity but they can still have an influence on company performances at a lower 90% confidence level.
We note that this study is at the preliminary stage and stock performance is a function of many factors, not only the diversity scores that we concluded. Needless to say, our diversity and incentive scores also reflect the level of disclosures by selected companies, not necessarily the actual practice within each company. Our diversity and incentive scores are also not a credit rating or ranking with peers and, hence, do not reflect default probability of selected companies.
We caution that in Asia, many diversity trends in the West may not apply. The fact that many Asian business communities may remain less sensitive to equal opportunities for females, disabled persons, or LGBTQ communities could make returns of Asian companies less correlated to diversity than in the West. Likewise, additional incentives in some countries in Asia may not be necessary as employees’ strong performance (i.e. in Japan) is a norm, according to the prevalent work culture.
Bondcritic is developing a scoring model, which includes environment, social development, and corporate governance; the last of which cover diversity and incentives. This report is the first of the series to uncover shenanigans in the Asian corporate sector.

Asian Governance: Diversity & Incentives Through the Cultural Lens

Pan-Asia Catalysts/Events, Quiddity Advisors

Travis Lundy

Pan-Asia Catalysts/Events

Quiddity Advisors

The question has been asked about dividends in Japan and what they may look like for the remainder of this year and into 2021. Japanese companies have grown revenues over the past ten years, and have grown net income quite a bit faster. In addition, payout ratios have risen on a normalized basis since their last-decade lows in 2014. Because net income has dropped in the past year while dividends paid out have risen, payout ratios have spiked sharply. With the very large amount of buybacks executed in the past fiscal year to March 2020, total payout to shareholders has been quite significant. But COVID-19 has changed things. When companies announced earnings in April and May, a huge swath of corporate Japan neglected to provide forecasts. The largest number I have ever seen provided forecasts in ranges rather than as numbers. When Q1 earnings came around, many companies made a stab at full-year. Some have provided dividend guidance but net income in the April-June quarter along with forecasts for H1 and FY have given the Street some comfort to be able to forecast earnings and DPS. If one looks at the top 500, top 1000, and full set of companies in TOPIX on a like-for-like basis (where guidance exists), company guidance on both net income and dividends is below where the Street is (on a consensus basis). I expect, for the moment, that the Street still may have some to come down. There is every possibility that covid-19 aftershocks will produce some VERY bad numbers, but I do not expect that many companies to exceed forecasts by a wide margin. Some WFH and tech names may do well, but Japan is not NASDAQ (much to the chagrin of Japan's investors). On the whole, there are significant discrepancies in forecasts among sectors - autos, airlines, materials are all bad - but interestingly, there is also huge discrepancy among market cap biases. Even on a like-for-like basis on coverage or guidance, the top 500 names see total dividend forecasts for the FY to March 2021 only 3% lower than what was paid in the year to March 2020. That seems like a relatively small drop. The consensus implied drop in DPS for the next 500 names seems considerably larger, though some of this may be to worse data quality as you go down the market cap scale. A study of dividends this year and beyond continues below.

The question has been asked about dividends in Japan and what they may look like for the remainder of this year and into 2021. Japanese companies have grown revenues over the past ten years, and have grown net income quite a bit faster. In addition, payout ratios have risen on a normalized basis since their last-decade lows in 2014. Because net income has dropped in the past year while dividends paid out have risen, payout ratios have spiked sharply. With the very large amount of buybacks executed in the past fiscal year to March 2020, total payout to shareholders has been quite significant. But COVID-19 has changed things. When companies announced earnings in April and May, a huge swath of corporate Japan neglected to provide forecasts. The largest number I have ever seen provided forecasts in ranges rather than as numbers. When Q1 earnings came around, many companies made a stab at full-year. Some have provided dividend guidance but net income in the April-June quarter along with forecasts for H1 and FY have given the Street some comfort to be able to forecast earnings and DPS. If one looks at the top 500, top 1000, and full set of companies in TOPIX on a like-for-like basis (where guidance exists), company guidance on both net income and dividends is below where the Street is (on a consensus basis). I expect, for the moment, that the Street still may have some to come down. There is every possibility that covid-19 aftershocks will produce some VERY bad numbers, but I do not expect that many companies to exceed forecasts by a wide margin. Some WFH and tech names may do well, but Japan is not NASDAQ (much to the chagrin of Japan's investors). On the whole, there are significant discrepancies in forecasts among sectors - autos, airlines, materials are all bad - but interestingly, there is also huge discrepancy among market cap biases. Even on a like-for-like basis on coverage or guidance, the top 500 names see total dividend forecasts for the FY to March 2021 only 3% lower than what was paid in the year to March 2020. That seems like a relatively small drop. The consensus implied drop in DPS for the next 500 names seems considerably larger, though some of this may be to worse data quality as you go down the market cap scale. A study of dividends this year and beyond continues below.

Pan-Asia Index Flows & Special Situations, Quiddity Advisors

Janaghan Jeyakumar, CFA

Pan-Asia Index Flows & Special Situations

<a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/koa-shoji-holdings" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:29044:1" rel="noopener">Koa Shoji Holdings (9273 JP)</a>  confirmed (<a href="https://ssl4.eir-parts.net/doc/9273/tdnet/1849228/00.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">J-only</a>) on 15th June they had received approval to move from the Second Section to the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange as of 30th June 2020. TSE1 reassignment triggers inclusion into the TOPIX Index and we expect the inclusion event will be at the close of trading 30th July 2020.Koa Shoji Holdings is an importer of APIs/intermediates ("active pharmaceutical ingredients") in Japan. They also manufacture various injections and OTC drugs.  The company <a href="https://www.koashoji-hd.com/company/message/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claims to target the "super-ageing"</a> population in Japan. In this insight, we take a look at the Index Inclusion Parameters and the Fundamentals of the company to evaluate if there is potential for further upside.

Koa Shoji Holdings (9273 JP)  confirmed (J-only) on 15th June they had received approval to move from the Second Section to the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange as of 30th June 2020. TSE1 reassignment triggers inclusion into the TOPIX Index and we expect the inclusion event will be at the close of trading 30th July 2020.Koa Shoji Holdings is an importer of APIs/intermediates ("active pharmaceutical ingredients") in Japan. They also manufacture various injections and OTC drugs.  The company claims to target the "super-ageing" population in Japan. In this insight, we take a look at the Index Inclusion Parameters and the Fundamentals of the company to evaluate if there is potential for further upside. 

TOPIX Inclusion (9273 JP): Koa Shoji Holdings

Three days ago I wrote <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/insights/boj-etf-buying-update" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="insights:38783" rel="noopener">BOJ ETF Buying Update</a> which described the impact of the BOJ buying ETFs on the underlying constituents. This morning, the BOJ made a small clarification, or possibly amendment, to their purchasing plan. This changes the daily purchasing constituent basket slightly, favouring the Nikkei 225 vs what the market probably thought it was doing since mid-March. A quick refresher course on BOJ ETF buying constituency is below.

Three days ago I wrote BOJ ETF Buying Update which described the impact of the BOJ buying ETFs on the underlying constituents. This morning, the BOJ made a small clarification, or possibly amendment, to their purchasing plan. This changes the daily purchasing constituent basket slightly, favouring the Nikkei 225 vs what the market probably thought it was doing since mid-March. A quick refresher course on BOJ ETF buying constituency is below.

Japan

Chugai Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals in the domestic and international markets through its subsidiaries. The Company develops drugs in the fields of cancer, infectious diseases, bone, blood, and circulatory systems. Chugai Pharmaceutical also conducts research studies on drugs with private and public medical research institutions.

Price Gauge
52-week Range	0.00 - 0.00
Market Cap (USDm)	0.00
P/E	0.00
Dividend (Yield)	0.00

Chugai Pharmaceutical (4519 JP)

🇯🇵 JAPAN • September Relative Price Scores - Profiting from Outlier Mean Reversion

• RELATIVE PRICE SCORE • RELATIVE PRICE SCORE OUTLIERS - The Relative Price Score (RPS) is a measure of price performance relative to TOPIX...

Campbell Gunn

Asian Governance: Diversity & Incentives Through the Cultural Lens

In this Smartkarma Original, we seek to study how diversity and incentives influence stock performance and profitability. We tallied diversity and...

Bondcritic

Looking at Japan Dividends This Year

The question has been asked about dividends in Japan and what they may look like for the remainder of this year and into 2021. Japanese companies...

Travis Lundy

TOPIX Inclusion (9273 JP): Koa Shoji Holdings

Koa Shoji Holdings (9273 JP) confirmed (J-only) on 15th June they had received approval to move from the Second Section to the First Section of...

Janaghan Jeyakumar, CFA

BOJ ETF Buying Composition Clarified

Three days ago I wrote BOJ ETF Buying Update which described the impact of the BOJ buying ETFs on the underlying constituents. This morning, the...

Travis Lundy

Price Gauge

52-week Range

Market Cap (USDm)

P/E

Dividend (Yield)