Heading into earnings season, our Q3’24 Inside The Buy-Side® Earnings Primer® survey, published October 10, registered a notable divergence in sentiment resulting in a bull-bear barbell, with fewer investors expecting earnings results to be In Line with consensus, while those anticipating beats and misses both increased notably QoQ. Adding to the already complicated macro landscape, the November election in the U.S. weighed heavily on the minds of investors coming into reporting season. Indeed, over half of respondents cited U.S. politics and election uncertainty as their leading concern, leapfrogging geopolitics. Worries about consumer health remained prevalent, while unemployment and stretched valuations emerged as watchouts.
That said, amid interest rate cuts, AI-driven demand, and expectations for “varied” earnings prints, a solid majority reported being Net Buyers or Rotating, with mid-caps seen as the most compelling investment opportunity of all the sizes. Finally, investors were confident that a Trump win would support equity market gains.
With Q3’24 earnings in the books, we “Close the Quarter” with some notable themes:
Overall, Q3 prints fared better than expected on the bottom line, though revenue performances were more mixed, similar to Q2.
With over 92% of S&P 500 companies reporting earnings to date, the index is reporting YoY blended1 earnings growth of 8.8%, 3.5% above the estimated rate heading into earnings (5.3% as of 10/1/24). Notably, 76% reported a positive EPS surprise, slightly below the 5-year average of 77%.
As for revenue, only 61% have reported positive top-line surprises, below the 5-year average of 69%, with prints 1.6% above consensus estimates, again below the 5-year average of 2.0%. At least 30% of companies within the Index missed revenue consensus this quarter across all sectors, save for REITs (29%), Healthcare (20%), and Tech (13%). Meanwhile, four sectors have had more than 50% of companies miss top-line estimates: Materials (64%), Utilities (63%), Consumer Discretionary (52%), and Industrials (52%).
We analyzed annual revenue and EPS guidance trends across the S&P 500.3 Below are our findings.4
Overall, annual revenue guides saw mixed trends; while more than one-third of companies Raised guidance, fewer did so this quarter, with a shift toward companies Maintaining guides (+7 pts QoQ). EPS saw a slight increase in the proportion of companies Lowering guides (+5 pts QoQ), but over 45% Raised.
Revenue:
Fewer companies Raised annual guides, 35%, while 30% Lowered and 35% Maintained; midpoints assume 5.5% growth, on average, up from 5.3% QoQ
EPS:
Albeit down from last quarter, nearly half of companies, 46%, Raised annual guides, while 31% Maintained and 23% Lowered; average EPS spreads decreased $0.05 to $0.20
While more companies have raised EPS guidance, these still appear fairly conservative relative to consensus. Among the 45% of companies that increased EPS guides, 61% still project figures below consensus estimates. Similarly, most company forecasts for annual revenue and EPS fall short of analyst expectations, although at least one-third exceed them.
When reviewing full-year 2024 consensus changes for the S&P 500 from one week before to one week after Q3 earnings announcements, analyst estimates reveal mixed revenue projections, but generally improving EPS outlooks.
For revenue, overall revisions were fairly balanced, with 38% of estimates maintained, 36% increased, and 26% decreased. Notably, Energy, Materials, Consumer Staples, and Industrials saw more companies facing downward revenue revisions than increases.
On the other hand, most sectors saw more companies with raised EPS estimates, 47%, than lowered, 31%. Exceptions included REITs, Materials, Energy, and Utilities, which experienced more EPS downward revisions than raises.
Combining both metrics, Energy and Materials stood out with a majority of downward revisions for both revenue and EPS, while Communication Services, Technology, and Financials had the largest upward revisions across both categories.
On a QoQ and YoY basis, S&P 500 M&A was higher by 34% and 38%, respectively, while capex also so increases of 13% QoQ and 17% YoY. In contrast, both buybacks and dividends, despite rising YoY, declined slightly QoQ by 2%, potentially indicating a subtle shift toward growth-oriented strategies. Notably, dry powder experienced the largest YoY decline, down 6%, as companies appear to be increasing spending on growth initiatives.
Indeed, every sector saw an increase in capex spending QoQ, with the largest median increases observed in Materials, REITs, and Technology. According to our latest Q3’24 Inside the Buy-Side® Earnings Primer® survey, investor sentiment toward growth capex remains highly supportive, with the majority of participants favoring either maintaining or increasing current investment levels.
Continuing, M&A emerged as the most significant portion of spending this quarter on an aggregate basis, highlighting a strategic focus on growth through acquisitions. This is in line with the findings from our Q3’24 Inside the Buy-Side® Earnings Primer® survey, which highlighted a 10% increase in M&A as a preferred use of cash by investors, while preferences for building dry powder decreased by 9%.
Looking more broadly at U.S. mergers, September deal values and volumes rose 9% and 5%, respectively, compared to the prior month. On a YoY basis, deal values surged by an impressive 37%, even as deal volumes fell by 20%, pointing to a trend of fewer but larger deals.
As noted last week, investors received a dose of clarity on Nov. 5 with Donald Trump winning the U.S. election by a definitive margin (312-226 electoral votes). Market reaction was swift, with stocks rallying on Nov. 6 with the S&P 500 posting its best post-Election Day performance on record, while the VIX, Wall Street’s “fear gauge”, fell more than 20%. At the same time, commentators and sell-side analysts were quick to highlight potential policy implications under a Trump 2.0 administration, including key considerations for companies and investors on both the headwind and tailwind sides of the ledger.
On the positive side, analysts broadly point to expectations for a looser regulatory environment, lower corporate taxes, and pro-domestic growth policies, with banks, big tech, short-cycle industrials, and smaller, more domestically focused U.S. companies perceived among the key beneficiaries. Not surprisingly, the Financial sector, and particularly regional banks, saw some of the biggest knee-jerk moves to the upside, with the KBWR Regional Banking ETF surging 13.6%. At the same time, the Russell 2000 small-cap benchmark jumped nearly 6%. Analysts also pointed out echoes of 2016, with many of the same “Trump Trades” en vogue, but with moves more pronounced this time around. Goldman Sachs noted its Cyclicals vs. Defensives basket pair rose by 6%, its largest one-day increase since March 2020, reflecting market expectations for a better U.S. economic growth outlook.
Of note, though Consumer Discretionary rose post-election, much of that was driven by Tesla shares rallying ~15% given Elon Musk’s close ties with Trump, while the specter of steep China tariffs weighed on apparel and consumer goods companies with a manufacturing presence in China. For instance, toymakers Hasbro and Mattel saw their shares drop 5% and 7% on the day, respectively.
At the same time, many have also noted that Trump inherits a vastly different market environment relative to 2016, with the S&P 500 having posted its best YTD performance for an election year (up 20%+ heading into the election), compared with a less than 5% YTD gain at the time of the 2016 election.
Meanwhile, a Trump 2.0 presidency will be contending with a higher interest rate backdrop and inflation still well above the Fed’s 2% target. To that end, analysts are flagging policy proposals such as aggressive tariffs that could put further upward pressure on prices, as well as an expected immigration crackdown that could stifle growth and present labor challenges for many sectors if implemented.
As highlighted in last week’s Thought Leadership, “tariff” mentions during earnings calls have spiked of late. With Trump floating the idea of a 20% blanket tariff globally, and as high as 60% for China, trade concerns and tariff implications are sure to remain top of mind for investors in the coming months.
Indeed, several companies have already indicated plans to either shift production or raise prices if Trump’s plans are implemented. Footwear maker Steve Madden said on Nov. 7 that the company plans to slash its percentage of goods sourced from China by 40-45% over the next year. Elsewhere, Stanley Black & Decker, in a Nov. 12 filing,6 disclosed that it estimates proposed China tariffs could erode its pretax operating income by $200M a year, noting the company is preparing to discuss price increases with its customers and has begun supply chain adjustments.
While the immediate election aftermath reflects a degree of relief with the removal of one near-term overhang for markets, many questions remain as to what government policy will ultimately look like as we move into 2025. Indeed, if markets crave certainty, Trump has proven to be inherently unpredictable, with some of his early cabinet nominees already causing a stir in Washington7. Despite optimistic headlines about the potential for a better business environment and a return of “animal spirits”, it’s too early to know how things will unfold around key issues such as trade, tax reform, and immigration, not to mention what a Trump 2.0 presidency will mean for an already tumultuous geopolitical landscape.
Nov. 6 – Sunoco ($7.0B, Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing)
Nov. 6 – Jack Henry & Associates ($12.7B, Information Technology Services)
Nov. 6 – Schneider National ($5.4B, Trucking)
Nov. 7 – Enersys ($3.9B, Electrical Equipment & Parts)
A recent publication from Barclays8 noted that through Q3, the number of activist campaigns globally was running 26% above the 4-year average. Given ongoing macro uncertainty and continued focus on cost-cutting and operational efficiency measures, the current environment is rife for activists in search of targets.
Just this week, industrial conglomerate Honeywell was targeted by well-known activist investor Elliott Management, which disclosed it had amassed a more than $5B stake and issued a letter to the board.
In its letter, the firm contends that “the conglomerate structure that once suited Honeywell no longer does, and the time has come to embrace simplification.” Elliott is calling for Honeywell to separate into two standalone companies — Honeywell Aerospace and Honeywell Automation — arguing that it could result in share price upside of 51-75% over the next two years.
While this is the latest example in a multi-year shift in investor preference away from the conglomerate model towards simplification, it underscores the need (perhaps now more than ever) for companies, particularly those with multiple businesses of scale, to clearly articulate the strategic rationale of the portfolio in order to secure investor buy-in.
Indeed, our earlier research into this topic found Industrials among the most heavily targeted sectors by activists. Further, our Voice of Investor® research identified company profiles most commonly receiving the greatest buy-in to the multi-segment or conglomerate approach.
For a deeper dive, read the full report: Investor Views on Multi-segment Companies
In addition to the rise in activist campaigns, there has also been an increase in companies targeted by short seller reports in recent months. Our internal tracking shows that since the start of Q3, at least 27 U.S.-listed public companies have been the subject of short seller reports. While these reports are frequently misleading, their prevalence bears watching and further highlights the need to keep your pulse on investor sentiment, engage with the Street, and get ahead of any potential investor misperceptions…essentially, be your own worst critic.
Further, as noted in a prior Corbin thought leadership publication, not all short reports are created equal. Consequently, when advising clients on how to respond, our approach will always be customized and vary on a case-by-case basis. See our research, Navigating Short Reports, for a deeper dive into this topic, including best practices and recommendations.
As we wrap up our coverage of Q3’24 earnings season, it’s clear that macro uncertainty remains top of mind with commentary heavily influenced by the U.S. election, questions around the path of Fed rate cuts, and heightened geopolitical turmoil. While we now have the election behind us, it will take time to gain clarity around what policy changes will be enacted once Trump enters the White House at the end of January.
At the same time, as we observed throughout the quarter, while the U.S. economy has proven resilient by most measures, manufacturing activity remains in the doldrums and many sectors continue to navigate a challenging demand environment globally.
While the timing of a demand inflection is anyone’s guess, you can bolster investor confidence by clearly articulating steps taken to navigate the current backdrop and position for an eventual turn. As we have said for years now, “don’t own the macro” and “control what you can control”.
As always, we remain dedicated to providing you with timely insights and actionable strategies to navigate the ever-changing and complex environment.