Q2 Winners And Losers: Who Were The Top And Bottom Contributors To The S&P

Tyler Durden's picture

In the second quarter, despite the ludicrous ramp in the S&P on the last day of the month on what has now been proven to be yet another fizzled European summit, the S&P dropped by 275 bps. Below is the full breakdown of which sectors contributed or detracted from the S&P's performance, as well as which companies were the biggest winners and losers in the quarter. In short: boring old Telecom (AT&T and Verizon at the top), Consumer Staples and Utilities did great, while IT, Financial and Energy got crushed.

Q2 S&P Composition:

Top 10 Contributors to the S&P:

Bottom 10 Contributors to the S&P:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
veyron's picture

Why were VZ and T the big winners?

Tippoo Sultan's picture

At the time ( beginning of Q2 ), both were yielding in excess of 5%; in sum, the insatiable hunger for yield...at the expense of fundamentals ( both currently have multiples in excess of 45 ).

Tom Green Swedish's picture

Think of it this way.  Since the introduction of the Iphone T lost 60 billion in market cap, while Apple gained 300 billion.  They both have good dividends and stable revenues and operating margins.

machineh's picture

'Since the introduction of the Iphone T lost 60 billion in market cap, while Apple gained 300 billion.'

Great observation; thanks.

Analogous to saying that since the Industrial Revolution, the dodo bird population asymptoted to zero, while humans gained six billion.


Tom Green Swedish's picture

Unfortunately without T and VZ the Apple Iphone would be worthless. You can bitch about the telcos all you want but our communications systems have been more essential than computers to our growth.  I could easily go without  a computer (a glorified pencil and paper), but without the telecommunications, we are toast. 


Now  go play with your Iphone.

I am Jobe's picture

More phones to keep the masses happy. Yeap, Sheeples needs to be entertained at all cost.

TrainWreck1's picture

When the .gov subsidizes cellphones, it's not hard to put up good numbers


As for WalMart & Junk food (Pepsi, coke), no spare money so the herds stick to essentials and cheap goods.


0z's picture

I recently read an article that explained that some Wal Marts in the states get almost half of their revenues from food stamps.

mkhs's picture

Good job.  Did you have any problems with the big words?

wandstrasse's picture

I know JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup and Google, but what do companies like 'General Electro' or 'Proker and Gamble' do? Do they have something to do with this ancient 'real economy'-thing I heard about in old fairy tales from my grandma? 

dwdollar's picture

You mean bailed-out, price-fixing, crony capitalist conglomerates? Did old grandma talk about those much?

HoofHearted's picture

Procter and Gamble does, while GE just likes to take money from its cronies in the government. But you probably never use shampoo or soap, bandages, laundry soap, or anything else that PG does.

(Disclaimer: my family has been long PG for 20-25 years now.)

augustusgloop's picture

Not to mention that telcos & utlitlies, beneift from the ZIRP environment as they have high debt levels (VZ debt to equity around 1.3-1.4 up from a low of .59 in 2006). If rates were to ever rise, would not be pretty.

machineh's picture

What do companies like 'General Electro' or 'Proker and Gamble' do?

'General Electro' lost its franchise of executing inmates in the 'chair,' and now plans to open 'Soylent Green' euthanasia parlors, catering to aging Boomers starved by ZIRP.

'Pokeher and Grumble' runs a chain of VD clinics for tattoed youth who copulate without protection and get infected with nasties.

Growth at all costs, bItCHeZ!

max2205's picture

Nice to see rolling manipulation in action! Nice job Ben!

I am Jobe's picture

Quick tell the shepples to go out and buy more fucking phones. Idiots inbreeding everyday, defining their lifes with phones and crap. F this shit

Quinvarius's picture

They keep raising margins on oil.  Refiner hedges are probably going to put them out of business.

Jack Sheet's picture

Interesting, but IMO there is a fallacy in analyzing quarterly performance because the start and finish time points are completely arbitrary. The "best performing" stocks from Apr-Jun might have been damn awful from Jan to Mar, with the converse being true for the "worst performers". Like silver having put in a "stellar" 1Q 2012 performance after having been f***ed rigid in 4Q 2011. The time period of interest IMO starts from when you bought the stock, assuming that was possible without being screwed by the HFT machines.

0z's picture

It's called relative performance. Looking at infividual issues is pointless, but comparing them over the exact same period is not.

Tom Green Swedish's picture

Where does Gold fit in here?  I know it only costs $460 an ounce to mine, but why wasn't gold a huge Q2 winner?  T and VZ 15 percent gains , Gold 4.26 percent loss?

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

for various companies gold costs far more than 460 to mine. The mining cost must include energy inflation and must include wage inflation for engineers and heavy equipment operators - THEY DO NOT work slave-wages - and exploration losses meaning you paid to find gold and the spot turned up nothing. This cost IS part of the real cost per ounce of gold - more in the area of 900 to 1200. If you think you can get gold cheaper then go dig it now, don't buy it at spot from someone who already has ready .9999 fine bars for you.

RobotTrader's picture

Gold has been a huge loser this year.  Same with the oils.  But the consumer is unstoppable, come hell or high water they are going to be buying the latest and greatest smartphones and tablets, and paying top price for the unlimited data plans.

Lots of guys predicting consumer "deleveraging" and commodity inflation got it completely wrong.

Tom Green Swedish's picture

Well duh.  Most people have no use for gold in their daily lives.  Gold is just some speculated bubble scam like oil was before and still somewhat now.  When was the last time you saw someone pull out an ounce of gold and start using it?


So basically commodities bull run is over?  But Gold man said to buy commodities..

augustusgloop's picture

Gold is a store of value--where i live in Mexico, every street corner has a "Compra Oro" shop. "Buy Gold". Small entrepreneurs allow you, paisa, to sell your patrimonio to make ends meet. Gold holds its value in the way a flat screen and pesos do not. I just bought a family's sterling silver for about 2/3 melt value... In crudest terms, gold is money (as is silver). Not a bubble until the shops start advertising "Selling Gold." You can imagine in Argentina, where buying dollars has been banned, how gold might be valued. Although you can outright ban gold, it doesn't prevent  it from functioning in the black/gray market-like chocolate, tobacco, and alcohol (al kohl-arabic origin).

orangegeek's picture

You're correct.  All commodities never go to zero. 


The question is what price it was bought and sold for.  In a deflationary market, commodities tend to ....well, deflate.  That is of course if we are currently in a deflationary market.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

You mean like last summer when bull and bear alike said gold wouldn't go up very high and it made an all new high? Ya... you're not very good at this game.