Pan-Asia Catalysts/Events, Quiddity Advisors

Travis Lundy

Pan-Asia Catalysts/Events

Quiddity Advisors

Event-Driven

<ul>
<li>Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP) has been the poster child for "deep value" Japan traders and occasional wannabe activists. It has a huge equity portfolio which dwarfs market cap. </li>
<li>Every year, twice a year (end of May and early December) Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP) releases a document for a meeting with analysts and press called Information Meeting.</li>
<li>This year's is a little different in that it proposes sales of 10% of its equity portfolio. It's "small" but worth thinking about. </li>
</ul>


Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP) has been the poster child for "deep value" Japan traders and occasional wannabe activists. It has a huge equity portfolio which dwarfs market cap. 
Every year, twice a year (end of May and early December) Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP) releases a document for a meeting with analysts and press called Information Meeting.
This year's is a little different in that it proposes sales of 10% of its equity portfolio. It's "small" but worth thinking about. 


Bank of Kyoto (8369) Surprises With a Cross-Holding Sale Plan (Albeit Small)

David Blennerhassett

<ul>
<li>With many cash grain/agri prices touching record highs amid war in Ukraine, boasting an upstream supply is not a bad thing. Yet <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/olam-international-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:765:1" rel="noopener">Olam (OLAM SP)</a> is a tricky beast to analyze.</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/bank-of-kyoto" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:5248:1" rel="noopener">Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP)</a> would be a screaming buy vs its basket a bit lower. As it is, it's the same level after the bank changed its payout ratio. </li>
<li>The duo of Brookfield and Atlassian/Australian billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes has lobbed a higher offer for <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/agl-energy-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:554:1" rel="noopener">AGL Energy Ltd (AGL AU)</a> and AGL has rejected it.</li>
</ul>


With many cash grain/agri prices touching record highs amid war in Ukraine, boasting an upstream supply is not a bad thing. Yet Olam (OLAM SP) is a tricky beast to analyze.

Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP) would be a screaming buy vs its basket a bit lower. As it is, it's the same level after the bank changed its payout ratio. 
The duo of Brookfield and Atlassian/Australian billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes has lobbed a higher offer for AGL Energy Ltd (AGL AU) and AGL has rejected it.


Last Week in Event SPACE: Olam, Bank of Kyoto, AGL Energy, Jardine Matheson, Toshiba

<ul>
<li>Last May I proposed a model for thinking about the appropriate discount of <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/bank-of-kyoto" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:5248:1" rel="noopener">Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP)</a> vs its giant equity portfolio and small operations. It was a sell.</li>
<li>In December, the bank changed its shareholder return ratio, which indicated less value destruction, and tighter appropriate discount. The shares rallied and discount narrowed. </li>
<li>Now the Shares Adjusted for Banking Ops Valuation have seen the discount to After-Tax Equity Portfolio Valuation widen sharply in the past 10 days. So here's the hedging model.</li>
</ul>


Last May I proposed a model for thinking about the appropriate discount of Bank of Kyoto (8369 JP) vs its giant equity portfolio and small operations. It was a sell.
In December, the bank changed its shareholder return ratio, which indicated less value destruction, and tighter appropriate discount. The shares rallied and discount narrowed. 
Now the Shares Adjusted for Banking Ops Valuation have seen the discount to After-Tax Equity Portfolio Valuation widen sharply in the past 10 days. So here's the hedging model.


Bank of Kyoto (8369) - A Complicated Risk Model Clarified

Every year (usually in the beginning of September), the Nikkei Inc Index team conducts an annual review of the major price-weighted Nikkei indices - the most important being the Nikkei 225 Average - and adds and subtracts constituents according to the Rules.
Today, they announced the 2021 version of the changes (<a href="https://indexes.nikkei.co.jp/nkave/archives/news/20210906E_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcement</a>, <a href="https://indexes.nikkei.co.jp/nkave/archives/news/20210906E_3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PAF changes</a>).
Below is Some Background. If you want to skip ahead to the juicy analysis, you can jump ahead to the Changes Announced section just below, and then more below the fold.
<h3>Some Background</h3>
The Nikkei 225, well-known globally as "the Nikkei" is a price-weighted index, originally started nearly 70 years ago as an average of a selected number of stocks listed on the TSE First Section. Later, it became 225 members. 
Because it is price-weighted, and because for a long time it made no divisor adjustments for stock splits (so when a stock split 2:1 its weight fell by half because price fell by half and trackers had to sell half their shares in that stock), and the price multiplier was determined by the par value of a company, then they later they started adjusting for splits, stocks which are old, never split, AND have a high price end up having a high weight in the index. 
There was a huge reshuffle in April 2000 when the Nikkei decided that the system needed rebalancing to include more tech, so they changed the Rules. They pushed 30 names out and 30 names in, and the 30 names added were 50% of the new index. 
Twenty one years after the prior change in methodology, this past May 10 the Nikkei Inc Index Team announced new changes to the Rules. There was a <a href="https://indexes.nikkei.co.jp/nkave/archives/news/20210510E_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposal</a>, with an <a href="https://indexes.nikkei.co.jp/nkave/archives/news/20210510E_3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FAQ</a>, and <a href="https://indexes.nikkei.co.jp/nkave/archives/news/20210510E_2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">supplemental data</a>. On 5 July, the Nikkei confirmed the proposal with a new <a href="https://indexes.nikkei.co.jp/nkave/archives/news/20210705E_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guidebook</a>.
When I wrote about this on 10 May in <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/insights/after-20yrs-nikkei-225-proposes-minor-impact-rule-changes-nintendo-disappointment" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="insights:51277" rel="noopener">After 20yrs, Nikkei 225 Proposes Minor Impact Rule Changes (Nintendo Disappointment?)</a> I said I thought the changes disappointing. There are real problems with the index and this did not do much; the changes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary, with the only interesting change being that constituents are added with a weight no greater than 1%. If the normal price adjustment factor would allow a constituent to enter at a weight greater than 1%, the Price Adjustment Factor (base 1) is lowered in increments of 0.1 so that the deemed inclusion weight on Base Date (end of July) is no more than 1%. There is no change to the idea that the Nikkei Index Team can override their rankings at any time as they see fit.
Because the Nikkei Index Team had let the sector balances and rankings slide quite a bit over the years (not adding "obvious" names and not deleting names which should probably have been deleted, and not rebalancing the sectors as the rules say they should), the possibility was that some names like <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/nintendo-co-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:5415:1" rel="noopener">Nintendo Co Ltd (7974 JP)</a> and similar high-price-low-share-count names which "deserved" to be included were not simply because their very high price would create undue impact (it was undue impact and the lack of incremental float for high-weight low-share-count names which caused the BOJ to lower, then eventually cease their buying of Nikkei 225 ETFs). This rule on capping inclusions at 1% would go a ways to mitigating that problem so that would allow the Nikkei to add previously un-addable names. Expectations were high on a group of names, with <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/nintendo-co-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:5415:1" rel="noopener">Nintendo Co Ltd (7974 JP)</a>, <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/keyence-corp" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:3077:1" rel="noopener">Keyence Corp (6861 JP)</a>, <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/zozo-inc" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:18379:1" rel="noopener">ZOZO Inc (3092 JP)</a>, and probably <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/oriental-land-co-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:13517:1" rel="noopener">Oriental Land (4661 JP)</a>, with the latter two likely to create some real froth if actually selected. 
<h2>The Changes Announced</h2>
Today after the close, the Nikkei Index Team announced the following changes to the Nikkei 225 Average as a result of the Annual Review:
<section class="figure">
<figure class="editor-figure mceNonEditable"><img src="https://static-prod.smartkarma.com/images/media/000/228/056/original/Screenshot+2021-09-06+at+5.11.07+PM.png?1630919479" class="editor-image img-responsive" data-smartkarma-image-id="228056"></figure>
</section>
<section class="figure">
<figure class="editor-figure mceNonEditable"><img src="https://static-prod.smartkarma.com/images/media/000/228/055/original/Screenshot+2021-09-06+at+5.06.02+PM.png?1630919179" class="editor-image img-responsive" data-smartkarma-image-id="228055"></figure>

</section>
The changes will be made on the last trading day of September, at the close. I expect to see $10bn trade on that day.
The new rules allow the Nikkei Index team to not do a lot to the sector mix if the additions are made because of "High Liquidity" because while the sector mix would normally mean more than three deleted, the new rules cap changes at 3 per annual rebalance (which is not enough).
As noted above, <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/zozo-inc" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:18379:1" rel="noopener">ZOZO Inc (3092 JP)</a> and <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/oriental-land-co-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:13517:1" rel="noopener">Oriental Land (4661 JP)</a> were among names which were expected as possible inclusions and therefore a certain amount of pre-positioning may be in place. They may get somewhat hurt tomorrow.
<div class="content-highlight">
There are a LOT of moving parts here. There are 3 ADDs, 3 DELETIONS, 1 Price Adjustment Factor moved sharply higher and one moved somewhat lower (a list of all the PAFs announced by the Nikkei is <a href="https://indexes.nikkei.co.jp/nkave/archives/news/20210906E_3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>), then there are another 220 stocks which will see selling on 30 September at the rebalance. 
</div>
For more detailed analysis of the stocks, their positioning, how much to buy, etc, please read on.
<hr>
For more about passive tracking in Japan, please refer to <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/insights/japan-passive-who-owns-what-2021" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="insights:55008" rel="noopener">JAPAN PASSIVE: Who Owns What 2021?</a>

Every year (usually in the beginning of September), the Nikkei Inc Index team conducts an annual review of the major price-weighted Nikkei indices - the most important being the Nikkei 225 Average - and adds and subtracts constituents according to the Rules.
Today, they announced the 2021 version of the changes (announcement, PAF changes).
Below is Some Background. If you want to skip ahead to the juicy analysis, you can jump ahead to the Changes Announced section just below, and then more below the fold.
Some Background
The Nikkei 225, well-known globally as "the Nikkei" is a price-weighted index, originally started nearly 70 years ago as an average of a selected number of stocks listed on the TSE First Section. Later, it became 225 members. 
Because it is price-weighted, and because for a long time it made no divisor adjustments for stock splits (so when a stock split 2:1 its weight fell by half because price fell by half and trackers had to sell half their shares in that stock), and the price multiplier was determined by the par value of a company, then they later they started adjusting for splits, stocks which are old, never split, AND have a high price end up having a high weight in the index. 
There was a huge reshuffle in April 2000 when the Nikkei decided that the system needed rebalancing to include more tech, so they changed the Rules. They pushed 30 names out and 30 names in, and the 30 names added were 50% of the new index. 
Twenty one years after the prior change in methodology, this past May 10 the Nikkei Inc Index Team announced new changes to the Rules. There was a proposal, with an FAQ, and supplemental data. On 5 July, the Nikkei confirmed the proposal with a new Guidebook.
When I wrote about this on 10 May in After 20yrs, Nikkei 225 Proposes Minor Impact Rule Changes (Nintendo Disappointment?) I said I thought the changes disappointing. There are real problems with the index and this did not do much; the changes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary, with the only interesting change being that constituents are added with a weight no greater than 1%. If the normal price adjustment factor would allow a constituent to enter at a weight greater than 1%, the Price Adjustment Factor (base 1) is lowered in increments of 0.1 so that the deemed inclusion weight on Base Date (end of July) is no more than 1%. There is no change to the idea that the Nikkei Index Team can override their rankings at any time as they see fit.
Because the Nikkei Index Team had let the sector balances and rankings slide quite a bit over the years (not adding "obvious" names and not deleting names which should probably have been deleted, and not rebalancing the sectors as the rules say they should), the possibility was that some names like Nintendo Co Ltd (7974 JP) and similar high-price-low-share-count names which "deserved" to be included were not simply because their very high price would create undue impact (it was undue impact and the lack of incremental float for high-weight low-share-count names which caused the BOJ to lower, then eventually cease their buying of Nikkei 225 ETFs). This rule on capping inclusions at 1% would go a ways to mitigating that problem so that would allow the Nikkei to add previously un-addable names. Expectations were high on a group of names, with Nintendo Co Ltd (7974 JP), Keyence Corp (6861 JP), ZOZO Inc (3092 JP), and probably Oriental Land (4661 JP), with the latter two likely to create some real froth if actually selected. 
The Changes Announced
Today after the close, the Nikkei Index Team announced the following changes to the Nikkei 225 Average as a result of the Annual Review:







The changes will be made on the last trading day of September, at the close. I expect to see $10bn trade on that day.
The new rules allow the Nikkei Index team to not do a lot to the sector mix if the additions are made because of "High Liquidity" because while the sector mix would normally mean more than three deleted, the new rules cap changes at 3 per annual rebalance (which is not enough).
As noted above, ZOZO Inc (3092 JP) and Oriental Land (4661 JP) were among names which were expected as possible inclusions and therefore a certain amount of pre-positioning may be in place. They may get somewhat hurt tomorrow.

There are a LOT of moving parts here. There are 3 ADDs, 3 DELETIONS, 1 Price Adjustment Factor moved sharply higher and one moved somewhat lower (a list of all the PAFs announced by the Nikkei is here), then there are another 220 stocks which will see selling on 30 September at the rebalance. 

For more detailed analysis of the stocks, their positioning, how much to buy, etc, please read on.

For more about passive tracking in Japan, please refer to JAPAN PASSIVE: Who Owns What 2021? 

2021 Nikkei 225 Rebalance: Nintendo, Murata, Keyence IN; Nisshinbo, Toyo Seikan, 'Skupper' OUT

The Nikkei wrote an article last Thursday 18 March 2021 saying the BOJ would change its monetary/quantitative easing policy after having commenced a review in December.
The general idea was a slight curve steepening allowance made "to allow banks to be more profitable" and a change to the way ETF buying was conducted. 
<div class="content-highlight">
I published a quick analysis of the <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/insights/changes-in-boj-etf-buying-which-stocks-impacted-and-how" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="insights:49331" rel="noopener">Changes In BOJ ETF Buying - Which Stocks Impacted and How?</a> 
</div>
On Friday 19 March, the BOJ met and after the MPC Meeting published...
<ul>
<li>The policy statement for this release, <a href="https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2021/k210319a.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Further Effective and Sustainable Monetary Easing</a>
</li>
<li>a <a href="https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2021/k210319c.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Background</a> to the policy change which discussed the work they did called the Assessment for Further Effective and Sustainable Monetary Easing.
</li>
<li>a nifty <a href="https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2021/k210319b.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">two-pager powerpoint presentation</a> of the Background</li>
<li>and a document called <a href="https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2021/rel210319c.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Establishment of "Principal Terms and Conditions of the Interest Scheme to Promote Lending"</a> which also contains the change in wording for the QQE</li>
</ul>
This showed there was some subtlety in the methodology, but it also showed some of the restrictions that the BOJ would place on itself in how it decided when and how much ETF buying to do. 
<div class="content-highlight">
I looked at the methodology and numbers and proposed a model in <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/insights/quantifying-the-boj-change-in-etf-policy-assessing-future-etf-buying-methodology" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="insights:49434" rel="noopener">Quantifying the BOJ Change in ETF Policy: Assessing Future ETF Buying Methodology</a> 
</div>
The market reaction on some high-Nikkei weight stocks on Thursday afternoon and particularly Friday afternoon was striking. <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/entities/fast-retailing-co-ltd" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="entities:751:1" rel="noopener">Fast Retailing (9983 JP)</a> fell 5.2% in significant volume in the 30 minutes after the announcement.
The balance of ETF buying since the BOJ lifted its buying amount from ¥6 trillion annually to ¥12 trillion in mid-March 2020 in the covid-crash has been as would have been expected. From the 20th of March 2020 through the 19th of March 2021, the BOJ bought ¥5.29trln of regular ETFs of these three indices (and ¥290bn of ETFs to Support Investment in Physical &amp; Human Capital).
In <a href="https://www.smartkarma.com/insights/boj-etf-buying-composition-clarified" target="_blank" data-smartkarma-citation="insights:38898" rel="noopener">BOJ ETF Buying Composition Clarified</a> in April 2020, I noted the mix was at that time likely to be 90.5% TOPIX, 8.9% Nikkei 225, and 0.6% JPX Nikkei 400. By my calculation, reconstructing the purchases every day based on the rules, the purchase amount over the past year has been 90.4% TOPIX, 9.1% Nikkei 225, and 0.6% JPX Nikkei 400. Given that the BOJ owns most of the ETFs outstanding of these three indices, it would have been difficult to see substantial deviation from that rate.
<div class="content-highlight">
The question is whether the change dramatically impacts stocks going forward.
The easy arithmetic answer is.... no. 
</div>
<ul>
<li>Assuming the BOJ were to buy the same amount, TOPIX would see a 10.7% increase in allocations to TOPIX ETFs (from 90.4% to 100.0%)</li>
<li>Nikkei 225 and JPX Nikkei 400 ETFs get nothing. But Nikkei 225 stocks are, by definition, also members of TOPIX, and the vast majority of JPX Nikkei 400 stocks are too. </li>
</ul>
But there is some subtlety here too.
What it really means, however, is that traders and investors cannot count on incremental BOJ demand over the next year to be a material part of remaining Real World Float. This is more a problem of expected support being withdrawn.
Analysis on this below the fold.

The Nikkei wrote an article last Thursday 18 March 2021 saying the BOJ would change its monetary/quantitative easing policy after having commenced a review in December.
The general idea was a slight curve steepening allowance made "to allow banks to be more profitable" and a change to the way ETF buying was conducted. 

I published a quick analysis of the Changes In BOJ ETF Buying - Which Stocks Impacted and How? 

On Friday 19 March, the BOJ met and after the MPC Meeting published...

The policy statement for this release, Further Effective and Sustainable Monetary Easing

a Background to the policy change which discussed the work they did called the Assessment for Further Effective and Sustainable Monetary Easing.

a nifty two-pager powerpoint presentation of the Background
and a document called Establishment of "Principal Terms and Conditions of the Interest Scheme to Promote Lending" which also contains the change in wording for the QQE

This showed there was some subtlety in the methodology, but it also showed some of the restrictions that the BOJ would place on itself in how it decided when and how much ETF buying to do. 

I looked at the methodology and numbers and proposed a model in Quantifying the BOJ Change in ETF Policy: Assessing Future ETF Buying Methodology 

The market reaction on some high-Nikkei weight stocks on Thursday afternoon and particularly Friday afternoon was striking. Fast Retailing (9983 JP) fell 5.2% in significant volume in the 30 minutes after the announcement.
The balance of ETF buying since the BOJ lifted its buying amount from ¥6 trillion annually to ¥12 trillion in mid-March 2020 in the covid-crash has been as would have been expected. From the 20th of March 2020 through the 19th of March 2021, the BOJ bought ¥5.29trln of regular ETFs of these three indices (and ¥290bn of ETFs to Support Investment in Physical &amp; Human Capital).
In BOJ ETF Buying Composition Clarified in April 2020, I noted the mix was at that time likely to be 90.5% TOPIX, 8.9% Nikkei 225, and 0.6% JPX Nikkei 400. By my calculation, reconstructing the purchases every day based on the rules, the purchase amount over the past year has been 90.4% TOPIX, 9.1% Nikkei 225, and 0.6% JPX Nikkei 400. Given that the BOJ owns most of the ETFs outstanding of these three indices, it would have been difficult to see substantial deviation from that rate.

The question is whether the change dramatically impacts stocks going forward.
The easy arithmetic answer is.... no. 


Assuming the BOJ were to buy the same amount, TOPIX would see a 10.7% increase in allocations to TOPIX ETFs (from 90.4% to 100.0%)
Nikkei 225 and JPX Nikkei 400 ETFs get nothing. But Nikkei 225 stocks are, by definition, also members of TOPIX, and the vast majority of JPX Nikkei 400 stocks are too. 

But there is some subtlety here too.
What it really means, however, is that traders and investors cannot count on incremental BOJ demand over the next year to be a material part of remaining Real World Float. This is more a problem of expected support being withdrawn.
Analysis on this below the fold. 

Quantifying BOJ Change in ETF Policy: Affecting Single Stocks

Japan

Kyocera Corporation manufacturers electronic equipment and components. The Company's products include telecommunication equipment, information equipment, optical equipment, ceramic products, semiconductor parts, chips, hybrid integrated circuits, thermal printheads, image sensors, liquid crystal displays, and connectors. Kyocera operates worldwide.

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

Kyocera Corp (6971 JP)

Bank of Kyoto (8369) Surprises With a Cross-Holding Sale Plan (Albeit Small)

Bk of Kyoto holds an "Information Meeting" twice a year. May's comes two weeks after earnings. This one holds a surprise with a new plan to reduce...

Travis Lundy

Last Week in Event SPACE: Olam, Bank of Kyoto, AGL Energy, Jardine Matheson, Toshiba

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a coffee, grab a comfortable seat, and sift through a brief summary of insights on various events discussed...

David Blennerhassett

Bank of Kyoto (8369) - A Complicated Risk Model Clarified

The Bank of Kyoto (8369) model is clarified so dynamic hedging ratios depend on regional bank PBRs. The model suggests it's at the cheap end of its...

Travis Lundy

2021 Nikkei 225 Rebalance: Nintendo, Murata, Keyence IN; Nisshinbo, Toyo Seikan, 'Skupper' OUT

The Nikkei 225 Rebalance is here. A small surprise in the ADDs. No surprises on the DELETEs. A couple of housekeeping changes, and 600 baskets to...

Travis Lundy

Quantifying BOJ Change in ETF Policy: Affecting Single Stocks

BOJ Policy Changes are dramatic in price and volatility space. Vol goes up near space, down far space, skew flattens. Fast Retailing and others are...

Travis Lundy

Price Gauge

52-week Range

Market Cap (USDm)

P/E

Dividend (Yield)