skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This will surely be an unpopular view, but it's time the province of Alberta considered raising taxes on the bargain prices that is gasoline. The low prices have benefited many industries and users, including transportation (airlines, shipping, and rail), agriculture, restaurants, hospitals, first-responders, governments, and vehicle drivers. The shift in profits from mega-corporations to small businesses and families is a welcoming trend. However, sustained crude prices below $45 US a barrel (and today $27) have harmed governments in Alberta and Canada as income taxes, property taxes, and oil revenue has dried up, pun intended.
According to Alberta Energy, the Alberta government's royalty revenue from oil sands in the fiscal year 2014-2015 was $5.0 billion unaudited. Conventional oil royalties was $2.2 billion. The Notley NDP government announced at the end of January 2016 it had made minor changes to the royalty agreements tied to the many industries related to energy, however, it might not be enough to get the province out of a deficit.
The provincial government predicts that deficit to be $6.5 billion this year. Revenue from non-renewable energy may decline almost two-thirds; income tax revenue will also decline. Trying to justify a tax increase to its voters and citizens during economic hardships and recessions can lose a government its power, however, Canada is not in a recession - defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth. With GDP growth tepid but existent and employment opportunities still abundant, this is a good opportunity to capitalize on low prices coupled with gasoline affordability.
Charging a five cent tax on gasoline as a way to reclaim revenue lost from the decline in oil is fit for this government. Gasoline prices are very inelastic and consumers are more inclined to pay higher prices because it is such a necessity in our economy. In 2014, when gas prices were near record highs, Alberta consumed over 6.5 trillion litres of gasoline and 4.4 trillion litres of diesel at gas stations, the highest rates from 2010 to the present and presumably the highest rates in Canadian history (view statistics here).
This five-cent tax increase by the province of Alberta would generate, using the figures of 2014, more than $500 million in tax revenue at the pump alone. This excludes fuel used in jets, boats, and trains. An aggressive government could tack on 20 cents and yield $2 billion in revenue. Gas prices would soar to 80 cents overnight and could anger Albertans, however, these prices are still the lowest seen this century. Governments could reduce the taxes as oil revenue rose to shift the burden away from vehicle drivers. With many citizens wanting and willing to pay more to get people back to work and governments back in the black, this is a huge opportunity that cannot be ignored.
A depreciated loonie could help Canadian companies' bottom lines as we head into earning seasons here up north. Many companies with US exposure are expected to see a boost in its earnings per share projections, such as banks and energy companies. The falling dollar, now valued at 1.37 US, provides a cushion for many corporations who report in Canadian dollars but generate revenue in the US.
How so? Most Canadian companies have expenses in Canadian dollars. All things being equal, if they are now receiving 30 per cent more in Canadian without changing their business models, implementing any new strategies, or growing their brands, there is an automatic hike in revenue after conversion.
Canadian banks exposed to the US include TD and Bank of Nova Scotia. These two have entered the US years ago and may reap the benefits of a falling loonie.
Energy companies have seen oil prices crash over the last year, but the falling dollar has made times a little easier. The spot price of WTI is currently trading around $33 a barrel; this is $45 Canadian. When oil was at its peak, the Canadian dollar was near par. The drop in oil itself has significantly lowered expectations. Suncor has posted earnings today with the stock rising over 1 per cent on news it lost 2 cents per share in this quarter. Other major oil companies include Canadian Oil Sands and Imperial Oil.
Should the Bank of Canada lower interest rates?
JP Morgan mentioned just prior to the Bank of Canada interest rate decision that lowering the lending rate in Canada would indeed help the country's economy. The reduction in the interest rate to below 0.50 per cent in theory would have lowered the Canadian dollar even further, but as an exporting country, this would improve GDP.
The depreciation of the loonie could have helped kick start inflation as well. Canadian inflation rates have meandered below the 2 per cent target for an extended period of time which is often an undesirable situation. Inflation encourages spending and the flow of money as consumers that make purchases are more likely to do it sooner rather than later. If a deflationary economy exists, spending could halt and a recession could be ignited.
Disclaimer: the author of this article has household members that own Bank of Nova Scotia and Canadian Oil Sands. This article is for information purposes and does not make recommendations on buying or selling any of the companies listed. Please review your investment holdings and speak to a professional prior to any decisions.
My friend recently became interested in the long iron condor strategy, a technique used by option traders that speculate an asset will remain within a price range at the option's expiration date. There are many websites that explain how a long iron condor can be executed, however, these sites must assume that the reader is knowledgeable enough to understand the terminology. Understandably, these sites would need to use the proper jargon as the strategy is often implemented by sophisticated traders only. It's a sharp learning curve for beginners wanting to understand the complicated technique regardless of their intentions to execute the trade or not. The strategy employs four individual option strategies combined into one large strategy. The trader will buy a call (profit when a stock rises), sell a call (profit when the stock does not rise), buy a put (profit when a stock falls), and sell a put (profit when a stock does not fall). Most of these trades counteract each other; this is the fundamental key in an iron condor as it allows speculators to make larger returns with less risk.
Imagine yourself playing a game with a colleague that carries two 12-sided dice at all times. He whips out his dodecahedrons and plays a game of pure speculation. You decide to start simple..
Your first speculation is that the combined total will be below 13 (which is the half way point). You pay $3. For every number below 13, he will pay you $1. If the roll is 2 (the lowest possible number), you will receive $11. Subtracting your original cost, you will earn $8 profit. This is essentially why a put option is employed in an account. In such a scenario, an investor may own the shares and is concerned the value of the stock will drop. Therefore, the investor pays $3 a share to protect a stock worth $113 a share. Any price drop is equally offset by the increase in the price of the put option.
Your second wager is that the combined total will now be above 13. Much like in the first example, you will receive $1 for every number above 14 to a maximum of 24. This is similar to the purchase of a call option. A trader would purchase a call option for $3 in hopes the underlying asset will rise above a pre-determined value. Investors will make this purchase because it is cheaper to speculate. Instead of purchasing the stock for $100 a share, they can make the same prediction for just a fraction of the stock price.
In the above example, you sacrifice your original $3 investment if you are wrong. Speculators use options because the stock may be un-affordable or the speculator does not feel the need to invest large capital to speculate. If the same profits can be earned with the fraction of the cost, then it may be deemed more effective and efficient. Another note, in the above example, your friend is receiving the money from you in advance. You decide you would like to be the "dealer" but you choose the ranges and he will pay you what he feels is fair value considering its chances of success.
Your third bet, you decide to change it up. You will now be the one paying out to your friend. However, you get to predict the next roll. You inform your friend that you think the roll will be below 20. The odds of success is 15/144. Therefore, your friend will be willing to make that bet, however, he feels he only wants to pay 40 cents. In return if he is right, he will earn up to $4 or 9.6 times his money. This is essentially how a trader sells a call option. A stock may be trading at $113 and he believes that the stock will remain below $120. It would require a stock price to rise over 6 per cent before the option seller loses money. The trader is willing to make this bet because the odds are extremely low and the investor receives an immediate cash return by selling the option to the other investor.
You make a fourth bet and predict the next roll will be above 6. Again, the odds are identical and your friend only wants to pay 40 cents. This is identical to an investor selling a put option. The investor selling the put option is anticipating the stock remains above a certain price. The lower the probability of it being wrong, the less the investor earns.
With additional combinations at your disposal and a willing partner to accept any selection of ranges, you spice up the bets.
Your fifth bet becomes a two-legged bet. Firstly, you speculate the dice roll will be above 13, however, this time, you will receive the $3. You realize you only have $7 in your pocket, so if you're wrong, you won't have enough to pay the $8 max profit. So, you add a second component that speculates the next dice roll will be below 6 and pay 40 cents. The most you can lose is the $7 difference. Since you already received $3 and had to pay 40 cents, you will earn $2.60 immediately and keep it if the roll is over the par line. If you are incorrect, the max loss is $4.40. In fact, in this situation, if the roll is 12, you will return $1, but have made a profit of $1.60. This strategy is similar to a bull put spread. It is bullish (investor thinks it will not fall) and uses two put options. A trader would employ this strategy if they have limited investment capital or would prefer to concentrate their potential. The trader speculates that the stock will either remain flat or rise. This gives the speculator two ways to earn money. As well, by receiving cash in advance, the trader can earn interest on the premiums received.
Your sixth bet is now the reverse of the previous two-legged bet. You bet the dice roll will be below 13 and protect it with a bet that it will be above 20. Again, you will receive $2.60 immediately and earn money if the roll remains below the par line. Again, all the same arithmetic applies. This investment strategy is known as a bear call spread. The bet is bearish (investor thinks the asset will not rise) and uses two call options.
Now, you have mastered the art of dice rolling and do a four-legged bet that employs all four wagers. With all being said and done, you will receive a total of $5.20. Since there is only one roll that provides maximum profit (13), you expect to lose a little bit of the $5.20. You will profit if the stock is between 7 and 19. There are only 30 combinations that will net you a loss. The employment of a bull put and bear call spread is known as the long iron condor strategy. This strategy is popular among sophisticated investors because only one side can be wrong and therefore, the profits are doubled if they are correct without having to deposit or offer any additional margin to the broker.
In reality, the trader would rarely choose the exact middle due to the fact that there are costs and commissions associated. It would also potentially require the trader to close out both sides if the stock is right down the middle to prevent either option from being assigned. A speculator would leave a buffer area of any range. 7 and 13 if they feel the next dice roll, that is, the stock may dip, or 7 and 19, or 15 and 20. Their success will ultimately be determined based on the stock's closing price on the day of expiration, assuming the options are not closed in advance.
The long iron condor is a fantastic and efficient way to capture the time value of an option. As time passes, the odds of any option being correct decrease and therefore, investors looking to purchase these options are willing to pay less. The goal of the option seller is to capture the time value and hope that the stability of the market reduces the value of the options to zero. It is also a more efficient use of capital. A trader employing strategy number three can theoretically lose an infinite amount of money. A stock at $113 does not cap at $124 a would occur in the dice example. It could go to hundreds of dollars. The trader would be responsible for this infinite gain and traders may want to cap their losses by reducing their return. As well, strategy three would typically require 30 per cent of the value of the stock. Therefore, a stock at $113 would require at most $33.90 immediately as margin. However, a spread would only require a deposit equal to the maximum loss.
Using the values above, a trader wanting to earn $3 would require $33.90, which equals a rate of return of 8.8 per cent. The trader of either strategy 5 or 6 would only require $4.40. The trader would return 59 per cent by simply paying that 40 cents. This is how yields are concentrated. The iron condor trader would then apply both sides and receive $5.20 and could net at most 289 per cent return, assuming the dice roll was exactly 13 or the stock closes at exactly $113.
The long iron condor is a tool used by many range traders and is an optimal way to earn large returns for less risk than owning capital. Its implementation requires extreme precision and knowledge of the options market. However, with the education and tolerance for risk, traders can reap huge rewards for simply working minutes a week.
The National Hockey League (NHL) has made multiple changes to its entry draft selection rules over the past decade trying to come up with a solution that is fair. It should come as no surprise to learn that more rule changes will be implemented over the next two years. The NHL, and essentially every other North American professional and junior level sports leagues, continues to use the same methodology to determine the draft order: the standings. However, it has become apparent in March that tanking the season to finish as low as possible is a viable long-term solution when coupled with luck and draft-class depth.
Over the course of the final weeks of the season, Arizona and Buffalo played against each other twice. It was coined the MacDavid Bowl. The game in Buffalo has become infamous as home-team fans, typically rooting for Buffalo, cheered when Arizona won because fans knew that a loss would increase the odds of winning the NHL lottery. Rightfully so, players were upset and frustrated at how their season unfolded.
Athletes do not tank; it is not in their nature. They have a desire to win - to gain valued experience or growth, break personal milestones, and earn a better contract, but management can force coaches to play back up goalies, or trade away assets early enough to finish last. Considering MacDavid is a once-in-a-generation type player, the temptations to lose are there, and that is something the league wants to avoid. So what can the league do to keep its integrity intact?
The solution has been in plain sight for years but the NHL has overlooked its advantages. The NHL has two parts to its draft selection order. 14 non-playoff teams are positioned so that the team with the worst record selects first and uses a reverse standings system to fill the remaining. The 16 playoff teams are then assigned its selection position based on when they are eliminated from the playoffs. Therefore, teams in the playoffs are seeded in the draft on their elimination from winning the Holy Grail. The proposal for the NHL is to expand this to the entire league.
Let me clarify. The moment a team cannot win the Stanley Cup, they would automatically be slotted in the highest possible position in the draft order. That is, a team that is mathematically eliminated from playoff contention has been eliminated from winning the Stanley Cup. This method would remain consistent as teams that are eliminated from the playoffs would continue to be slotted in the draft leaving just the champions to take the 30th spot. This proposal will resolve many potential problems that may or may not exist and add many advantages.
Firstly, it will eliminate season-ending "tanking" and teams being ripped apart to finish last. Instead of battling the remaining games for the best odds at the lottery, teams would have to decide mid-season if they want to make a chase for the playoffs or tank a small number of games and be eliminated. I am to believe all teams will try to make the playoffs if there is a chance - see the Ottawa Senators. With the current format, teams that deliberately tank would have to lose a larger handful of games and this lacks integrity. Imagine playing Buffalo or Arizona for the final two or three games. However unlikely, it is possible that the outcome of the game has been decided before the puck drops as one team fights for a playoff spot while the opponent wants to lose.
Secondly, management would be given their selection order weeks in advance, allowing their post-season work to being sooner. This would give management more time to interview players and make better decisions. Imagine the advantage for Toronto's scouts and management knowing on March 18 instead of April 12 they will select fourth overall. It is almost one month of added time to make decisions for their club.
Thirdly, players can still play for pride and not hurt their team's long-term future. Games can still be exciting between two non-playoff teams because the outcome affects nothing. Fans do not have to take solace in losing, and can enjoy winning and the game as it was meant to be.
Included below is a table that provides the order of the draft selection if this proposal were implemented by the league. What we do see here is that there is almost no change to the draft order. The only change would be to the San Jose Sharks, who move up to the 7th selection instead of their 9th. In essence, San Jose was punished for winning their last game of the year. The consistency of the order, regardless of the system used, is important as it shows that there is little impact to the draft order. However, what occurs is a major shift in the mindset of fans, players, coaches, and management from a "losing is great" to a more positive spirit.
| Date | Games | Team | Pts* |
| Mar 7 | 66 | Buffalo Sabres | |
| Mar 9 | 67 | Edmonton Oilers | |
| Mar 12 | 68 | Arizona Coyotes | |
| Mar 17 | 71 | Toronto Maple Leafs | |
| Mar 23 | 72 | Carolina Hurricanes | |
| Mar 29 | 76 | New Jersey Devils | 74 |
| Mar 30 | 76 | Philadelphia | 77 |
| Mar 31 | 76 | Columbus Blue Jackets | 79 |
| Apr 4 | 79 | Colorado Avalanche | 84 |
| Apr 4 | 79 | Florida Panthers | 87 |
| Apr 6 | 80 | San Jose Sharks | 87 |
| Apr 6 | 80 | Dallas Stars | 88 |
| Apr 9 | 81 | Los Angeles Kings | |
| Apr 11 | 82 | Boston Bruins | |
Any drawbacks to this system would be much less significant to the overall health of the game. Therefore, we feel that stating the problems with this plan would be moot as it still occurs in the current system.
Global stock market's highs and records suggest that the search for income are pushing investors into the equities market. Low yields have changed the economic landscape over the last five years and will continue to transform it for the next five. It is a dangerous time as those that cannot stomach the inherent dangers of capital losses and volatility may be making poor investment decisions. Given the history of equities, owning quality companies has been profitable. However, those in search of income may want to avoid owning stocks if they have the luxury of trading options, specifically, selling put options.
Frequent readers will know that I favour option selling over stock ownership because of strategic versatility, greater downside protection, lack of capital requirements, and potentially better returns. One may argue that options carry more risk, however, when used in replacement of equity ownership, the advantages do outweigh the disadvantages.
The main disadvantage is the limited capital gains. Selling put options simulates stock ownership because the seller is speculating that the stock will remain above a certain pre-determined price, known as the strike price. However, the option seller does not participate in any strong rallies and gains only on the decreasing put option price. Statistics do show that within a diverse put option account, one can still beat the market's historical returns.
Below is a chart of the top 25 widely held companies by institution that have November 2014 options. Note, only Pepsi was removed from the original list of the top 25 as November options have not been issued by the exchanges.
The data suggests that dividends paid to the investor over the next 84 days will be less than the premiums received by selling the out-of-the-money put options. As well, there is a larger hedge for the put seller, which can be used to offset the automatic price reduction on cum-dividend day. Using Apple as an example, a trader, whose options expire worthless, will theoretically earn over 12 per cent, assuming option deltas remain stable. Because future prices are often uncertain, it may be worth sacrificing any larger gains by accepting the 12 per cent yields on the option.
This strategy is best used for those that are willing to own the stock even at a later date and at a lower price in exchange for immediate upfront cash. This is because almost at-the-money options have a greater chance of being assigned, and as such, the investor must understand they will own the shares if the other party exercises their rights. One must also take into account elevated commission and tax consequences. Dividends and capital gains may be taxed differently in your country. It would be prudent to look into the strategy further.
Other worthy facts: the downside protection for all 25 companies exceeds 3 per cent. That is, the premiums received plus the out-of-the-money (OTM) amounts are all greater than 3 per cent. In the event of assignment, the new stock owner has actually purchased the stock at a discount in November. For investors borrowing money, this will reduce the interest payments to the brokerage. Other people may also purchase short-term debt instruments to expire in November because the loan values of GICs and treasury bills may be 90 per cent or greater. This means a person with $100,000 can sell options and buy short-term debt instruments at the same time!
