Chewing on Some Apple Pie
Apple pie is an unrivaled American dessert that optimally mixes the elements of dough, sugar, cinnamon, and apples. With Thanksgiving just around the corner, I can already taste that Costco (COST) apple pie that is about to snap my belt buckle open as I proceed to eat pie for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A different dessert of the stock variety, Apple Inc. (AAPL), recently received a sour reception after reporting its 3rd quarter financial results.
Despite reporting +27% year-over-year revenue growth and +23% earnings growth, investors have continued to spew the stock out as the share price has fallen from $700 per share down to $600 per share in about a month. With all this indigestion, is now the time to reach for the Tums or should we serve ourselves up another helping of some tasty Apple pie? Not everybody loves this particular fruity dessert, so let’s cut into the Apple pie stock and see if there is any dough to be made here.
Point #1 (Cash Giant): Apple Inc. is a profit machine with a fortress balance sheet. More specifically, Apple has around $121 billion dollars in cash in its checking account and generated over $42 billion in free cash flow in fiscal 2012. And by free cash flow, I mean the excess cash Apple gets to stuff in its pockets after ALL expenses have been paid AND after spending more than $8 billion in capital expenditures (including spending for their new 2.8 million sq. foot spaceship campus expected to open in 2015 and house 13,000 employees).
Point #2: (Brand): A brand has value that will not show up on a balance sheet, and according to Forbes, Apple’s brand is rated #1 on a global basis, outstripping iconic brands like IBM, McDonald’s (MCD) and Microsoft (MSFT). BrandZ, a division of advertising giant WPP, values Apple’s 2012 brand value at approximately $183 billion.
Point #3 (Product Pipeline): Apple is no one-trick pony. Apple’s iPhone sales account for about half of the company’s sales, but a whole new slate of products positions them well for the critical calendar fourth quarter period. Apple’s iPhone 5, iPad 3 (aka, “New iPad”), and iPad Mini should translate into robust holiday sales for Apple. What’s more, a +39% increase in Apple’s fiscal 2012 R&D (research and development) should mean a continued healthy pipeline of new products, including the ever-rumored new integrated version of Apple TV that could be coming in 2013.
Point #4 (Mobile & Tablets): Apple is at the center of the mobile revolution. There are approximately 5 billion cell phones globally, and about 2 billion new phones are sold each year. Of that 2 billion, Apple sold a paltry 125 million units (tongue firmly in cheek) with the market growing faster in Apple iPhone’s key smart phone market. As the approximately 500 million smart phone market grows to about 5 billion units over the next decade, Apple is uniquely positioned to capitalize on this trend. Beyond cell phones, the table market is bursting as traditional personal computer growth declines. Although Apple has made computers for 36 years, the company impressively generated +40% more revenue from fiscal 2012 iPad tablet sales, relative to Apple desktop and laptop sales.
Point #5 (Valuation): With all these positives, what type of premium would you pay for Apple’s stock? Does a +100% premium sound reasonable? OK, maybe a tad high, so how about a +50% premium? Alright, alright, I know you want a good bargain, so surely a +20% premium is warranted? Well in fact, if you account for Apple’s $121 billion cash hoard, Apple’s stock is currently trading at about a -22% DISCOUNT to the average S&P 500 stock on a P/E basis (Price-Earnings). You heard that correctly, a significant discount. If Apple is trading at a P/E discount, surely mature staple stocks like Procter & Gamble (PG) and Colgate Palmolive (CL), which both reported negative Q3 revenue declines coupled with meager bottom-line growth of 5%, deserve even steeper discounts…right? WRONG. These stocks trade at a 70-80% PREMIUM to Apple and a 35-40% PREMIUM to the overall market. Toilet paper and toothpaste I guess are a lot more popular than consumer electronics these days. Clear as mud to me.
Risks: I understand that Apple is not a risk-free Treasury security. Research in Motion’s (RIMM) rapid collapse over the last two years serves as a fresh reminder that in technology land, competition and obsolescence risks play a much larger role compared to other industries. Apple must still deliver on its product visions, and as the king of the hill Apple will have a big bulls-eye on its back from both competitors and regulators. Hence, we will continue to read overblown headlines about map application glitches and photographic purple haze.
In the end, a significant amount of pessimism is already built into Apple’s stock price (yes, I did say “pessimism” – even with the stock’s share price up +49% this year). If Apple can uphold the quality of its products and maintain modest growth, then I’m confident shareholders will happily eat another slice of Apple pie.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs) and AAPL, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in COST, IBM, MCD, CL, PG, MSFT, WPP, RIMM, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
USA Inc.: Buy, Hold or Sell?
If the U.S. was a company, would you buy, hold, or sell the stock? A voluminous report put out last year by Mary Meeker sought to answer that very question. Since we’re in the thick of the presidential elections, why not review the important financial state of our great nation.
For those of you who may not know who she is, Mary Meeker is the well-known partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, who is also affectionately known as the “Queen of Internet.” Apparently, beyond her renowned expertise in analyzing and valuing tech companies and start-ups, she also has the knack of dissecting government statistics and distilling wonky numbers down to understandable terms for the masses. “Distilling” may be a generous term, given the massive size of her 460-page report, USA Inc., but nevertheless, I am going to attempt to synthesize this gargantuan report even further.
As a visual learner, I think some key cherry-picked slides from her report will help put our multi-trillion debts and deficits in context, so here goes…
The Scope of the Problem
If one spends a few hundred billion dollars here, and a few hundred billion dollars there, before you know it, a trillion dollars will have piled up. Currently our government has run $1 trillion+ budget deficits for three years, and the estimated deficit is for another trillion dollar deficit this fiscal year. If you have ever wondered how many football fields it takes to fill with a trillion dollars of cash, then today is your lucky day. The answer: 217 football fields.
Financial Statements: The Health Thermometer
In order to determine the relative health of USA Inc., Meeker created financial statements for our country, starting with the income statement. As you can see from the chart below, unfortunately USA Inc.’s expenses have been significantly larger than its revenues, creating a “discouraging” trend of negative cash flows (deficits). An entity that takes in $2.2 trillion in revenue and spends $3.5 trillion, cannot sustainably continue this trend for long, before significant financial problems arise. The largest contributing factor to our country’s losses (deficits) has been the exploding costs of entitlements, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
As the pie chart shows, the major categories of entitlements comprise a whopping 58% of USA Inc.’s 2010 total expenditures.
Trillion dollar deficits have been the norm over the last three years.
Why Entitlement Spending is a Problem
Why are entitlements such a massive problem? The plain and simple answer to why entitlements are a major issue is that government expenditures are growing too fast. You can’t have expenses growing significantly faster than revenues for 45 years and expect to be in happy financial place.
Another reason for the abysmal spending record is due to politicians horrendous forecasting abilities. Future promises are made by politicians to garner votes today, and when they make overly rosy estimates about the costs of those promises, future generations are left holding the underfunded bag. Meeker points out that when Medicare was instituted in 1966, total future spending of $110 billion turned out to be about 10x more expensive (see chart below) than originally planned…ouch!
No Defense for Defense
Trillion dollar deficits and debts can’t be solely blamed on entitlements, but $700 billion in annual defense expenditures is not exactly chump change. The inopportune timing of the financial crisis in 2008-2009 didn’t help either, while two unfunded wars were being fought. Even if you strip out the wars, defense spending is still obscenely high. Given our poor state of financial affairs, we cannot afford to be the globe’s babysitter (see Impoverished Global Babysitter). Legacy Cold War spending on obsolete ground warfare needs to be reprioritized to 21st Century threats (i.e. focus on unmanned drones and coordinated intelligence). When a government spends more than the top 25 countries combined (see chart below), that country can certainly find some defense fat to trim.
Demographic Headwinds
The out-of-control gluttonous government spending is a threat to our national security, and although I wish I could say time alone will heal our fiscal wounds, unfortunately the opposite is true. Time is our enemy because the ticking demographic time bomb is about to explode, unless government acts to solve our spending problems. For starters, Americans are living longer, which means entitlement spending has accelerated faster than revenues collected, and life expectancy consistently continues to rise. As you can see below, life expectancy has outpaced Social Security age adjustments by +23% over a 74 year period.
Another self inflicted problem contributing to our colossal health care costs is the obesity epidemic. Over an 18 year period, the rate of obesity more than doubled to 32%. Individuals can and should shoulder more of the burden for these belt-busting costs, and government should spend more on prevention and education in this area. Bad drivers pay higher premiums for their auto insurance, so why not have bad eaters pay higher premiums? Genetics certainly can play a role in obesity, but so to do eating habits. The same accountability principle should be applied to smokers who overly burden our healthcare system too.
The USA spends more on healthcare than all OECD countries combined and 3x the OECD per capita average, yet as you can see from the chart below, the USA is not getting a life expectancy bang for its buck. The argument that the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world may be true in some instances, but the overall data doesn’t support that assertion.
The Rubber Hits the Road
The problem is easy to identify: Government spending going out the door is running faster than the revenues coming in via taxes. The solution is easy to identify too: Politicians need to cut spending, increase taxes, and/or do a combination of the two options. Like dieting, the solutions are easy to identify but difficult to execute.
Source: Calafia Beach Pundit – Scott Grannis
Almost everyone wants the government to spend less, but at the same time nobody wants their benefits cut. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Citing two different studies, Meeker shows how 80% of Americans want a balanced budget as a national priority, but only 12% are willing to cut spending on Medicare and Social Security.
The rubber will hit the road in the next few months when politicians in a post-presidential election period will be forced to face these difficult “Fiscal Cliff” choices – $700 billion+ in tax hikes and spending increases that jeopardize the current recovery and our fiscal future.
Source: PIMCO
As market maven Mary Meeker recognizes, our fiscal situation is quite “discouraging”. With that said, although USA Inc. may have earned a current “Sell” rating, Meeker acknowledges that our country can become a positive turnaround situation. If voters actively push politicians to making difficult but necessary financial decisions to lower deficits and debt, investors around the globe will be ready to “Buy” USA Inc.’s stock.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Google Caught Naked: Their Loss, Your Gain?
Google Inc. (GOOG) got caught naked yesterday with the early release of its lackluster numbers and “Pending Larry Quote,” but is Google’s loss your gain? An endless number of bloggers and media outlets were quick to jump on the bandwagon, highlighting the sophomor-ish early dissemination of quarterly results, and then simultaneously headlines were blasted about a -20% drop in profits.
I love these sensationalist headlines that I hear chirped in the local Starbucks (SBUX), on the elevator, or at the grocery store. The Armageddon headlines and cascading minute-by-minute charts make for entertaining viewing, but the gaudy $40 billion in cash piling up on Google’s balance sheet, including the measly $3 billion it added in the quarter, may also be news-worthy. Fear sells more than greed, which may explain why there is little mention of Google’s +45% revenue growth (equally misleading because of the Motorola deal). Let me remind you, the $3 billion of cold hard cash created in a single 90 day period is the equivalent size of many large established companies – companies like Groupon Inc. (GRPN), Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA), and Weight Watchers International Inc. (WTW).
If people could take off their panic caps for a minute, they would be able to see the explosion in smart phones (now around 1 billion) is on pace to swell to 5 billion over the next decade. What will that mean for a market leader like Google with over ½ billion Android devices that is activating 1.3 million more every day? I don’t know for sure, but I’m willing to venture it is going to mean a lot of dough for Google. What further inspires my confidence? Well, the fact that Google’s mobile related revenues have gone from $2.5 billion run rate last year to over $8 billion today indicates they are on the right track.
Google got caught naked with its press release flub, and the frail Motorola acquisition may cause a little indigestion in the coming quarters, but any short-run Google losses may be your opportunity for long-term gains.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs) and GOOG, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in SBUX, TSLA, GRPN, WTW, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Sleeping Through Bubbles and Decade Long Naps
We have lived through many investment bubbles in our history, and unfortunately most investors sleep through the early wealth-creating inflation stages. Typically, the average investor wakes up later to a hot idea once every man, woman, and child has identified the clear trend…right as the bubble is about burst. Sadly, the masses do a great job of identifying financial bubbles at the end of a cycle, but have a tougher time realizing the catastrophic consequences of exiting a tired winner. Or as strategist Jim Stack states, “Bubbles, for the most part, are invisible to those trapped inside the bubble.” The challenge of recognizing bubbles explains why they are more easily classified as bubbles after a colossal collapse occurs. For those speculators chasing a precise exit point on a bubblicious investment, they may be better served by waiting for the prick of the bubble, then take a decade long nap before revisiting the fallen angel investment idea.
Even for the minority of pundits and investors who are able to accurately identify these financial bubbles in advance, a much smaller number of these professionals are actually able to pinpoint when the bubble will burst. Take for example Alan Greenspan, the ex-Federal Reserve Chairman from 1987 to 2006. He managed to correctly identify the technology bubble in late-1996 when he delivered his infamous “irrational exuberance” speech, which questioned the high valuation of the frothy, tech-driven stock market. The only problem with Greenspan’s speech was his timing was massively off. Stated differently, Greenspan was three years premature in calling out the pricking of the bubble, as the NASDAQ index subsequently proceeded to more than triple from early 1997 to early 2000 (the index exploded from about 1,300 to over 5,000).
One of the reasons bubbles are so difficult to time during their later stages is because the deflation period occurs so quickly. As renowned value investor Howard Marks fittingly notes, “The air always goes out a lot faster than it went in.”
Bubbles, Bubbles, Everywhere
Financial bubbles do not occur every day, but thanks to the psychological forces of investor greed and fear, bubbles do occur more often than one might think. As a matter of fact, famed investor Jeremy Grantham claims to have identified 28 bubbles in various global markets since 1920. Definitions vary, but Webster’s Dictionary defines a financial bubble as the following:
A state of booming economic activity (as in a stock market) that often ends in a sudden collapse.
Although there is no numerical definition of what defines a bubble or collapse, the financial crisis of 2008 – 2009, which was fueled by a housing and real estate bubble, is the freshest example in most people minds. However, bubbles go back much further in time – here are a few memorable ones:
Dutch Tulip-Mania: Fear and greed have been ubiquitous since the dawn of mankind, and those emotions even translate over to the buying and selling of tulips. Believe it or not, some 400 years ago in the 1630s, individual Dutch tulip bulbs were selling for the same prices as homes ($61,700 on an inflation adjusted basis). This bubble ended like all bubbles, as you can see from the chart below.
Source: The Stock Market Crash.net
British Railroad Mania: In the mid-1840s, hundreds of companies applied to build railways in Britain. Like all bubbles, speculators entered the arena, and the majority of companies went under or got gobbled up by larger railway companies.
Roaring 20s: Here in the U.S., the Roaring 1920s eventually led to the great Wall Street Crash of 1929, which finally led to a nearly -90% plunge in the Dow Jones Industrial stock index over a relatively short timeframe. Leverage and speculation were contributors to this bust, which resulted in the Great Depression.
Nifty Fifty: The so-called Nifty Fifty stocks were a concentrated set of glamour stocks or “Blue Chips” that investors and traders piled into. The group of stocks included household names like Avon (AVP), McDonald’s (MCD), Polaroid, Xerox (XRX), IBM and Disney (DIS). At the time, the Nifty Fifty were considered “one-decision” stocks that investors could buy and hold forever. Regrettably, numerous of these hefty priced stocks (many above a 50 P/E) came crashing down about 90% during the1973-74 period.
Japan’s Nikkei: The Japanese Nikkei 225 index traded at an eye popping Price-Earnings (P/E) ratio of about 60x right before the eventual collapse. The value of the Nikkei index increased over 450% in the eight years leading up to the peak in 1989 (from 6,850 in October 1982 to a peak of 38,957 in December 1989).
Source: Thechartstore.com
The Tech Bubble: We all know how the technology bubble of the late 1990s ended, and it wasn’t pretty. PE ratios above 100 for tech stocks was the norm (see table below), as compared to an overall PE of the S&P 500 index today of about 14x.
Source: Wall Street Journal – March 14, 2000
The Next Bubble
What is/are the next investment bubble(s)? Nobody knows for sure, but readers of Investing Caffeine know that long-term bonds are one fertile area. Given the generational low in yields and rates, and the near doubling of long-term Treasury prices over the last twelve years, it can be difficult to justify heavy allocations of inflation losing bonds for long time-horizon investors. Gold, another asset class that has increased massively in price (over 6-fold rise since about 2000) and attracted swaths of speculators, is another target area. However, as we discussed earlier, timing bubble bursts is extremely challenging. Nevertheless, the great thing about long-term investing is that probabilities and valuations ultimately do matter, and therefore a diversified portfolio skewed away from extreme valuations and speculative sectors will pay handsome dividends over the long-run.
Many traders continue to daydream as they chase performance through speculative investment bubbles, looking to squeeze the last ounce of an easily identifiable trend. As the lead investment manager at Sidoxia Capital Management, I spend less time sucking the last puff out of a cigarette, and spend more time opportunistically devoting resources to less popular growth trends. As demonstrated with historical examples, following the trend du jour eventually leads to financial ruin and nightmares. Avoiding bubbles and pursuing fairly priced growth prospects is the way to achieve investment prosperity…and provide sweet dreams.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs) and are short TLT, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in AVP, MCD, XRX, IBM, DIS, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Robotic Chain Saw Replaces Paul Bunyan
The world is rapidly changing and so is the profile of jobs. Technology is advancing at an accelerating pace, and this is having enormous impacts on the look, feel, and shape of global workforce dynamics. If lumberjack Paul Bunyan and his blue ox Babe were alive today, the giant would not be chopping down trees with a plain old steel axe, but more likely Mr. Bunyan would be using a 20 inch, 8 horse-power chain saw with side-mounted tensioner purchased from ChainSawsDirect.com.
But productivity in logging is not the only industry in which output has dramatically increased over the last generation. A recent New York Times article published by John Markoff explores how robots and automation are displacing humans across many different companies and industries around the world.
In China, manufacturers have exploited the value of cheap labor in the name of low-priced exports, but with millions of workers now moving to job-filled cities, workers are now demanding higher wages and better working conditions. Besides rising wages, higher transportation costs have eaten away labor expense advantages too. One way of getting around the issues of labor costs, labor relations, and transportations costs is to integrate robots into your workplace. A robot won’t ask for a raise; it always shows up on time; you don’t have to pay for its healthcare; it can work 24/7/365 days per year; it doesn’t belong to a union; dependable quality consistency is a given; it produces products near your customers; and it won’t sue you for discrimination or sexual harassment. The initial costs of a robot may be costlier than hiring a human being by a factor of five times an annual salary, but that hasn’t stopped companies everywhere from integrating robots into their operations.
The Orange Box on Wheels
One incredible example of robot usage (not covered by Markoff) is epitomized through Amazon.com Inc.’s (AMZN) $750 million acquisition of Kiva Systems Inc. last year. In some cases, Kiva uses hundreds of autonomous mobile robots in a warehouse to create a freeway-like effect of ecommerce fulfillment that can increase worker productivity four-fold. Amazon is a true believer of the technology as evidenced by the use of Kiva robots in two of its major websites, shoe-retailer Zappos.com and baby-products site Diapers.com, but Kiva’s robots have also been used by other major retailers including Crate & Barrel, Staples Inc (SPLS), and Gap Inc (GPS). The orange square robots on wheels, which can cost in the range of $2 – $20 million per system, travel around a warehouse tracking the desired items and bring them back to a warehouse worker, ready to then be packed and shipped to a customer. Larger warehouses can use up to 1,000 of the Kiva robots. To see how this organized chaos works, check out the video below to see the swarm of orange machines dancing around the warehouse floor.
The Next Chapter
The auto and electronics industry have historically been the heaviest users of robots and automation, but those dynamics are changing. Healthcare, food, aviation, and other general industries are jumping on the bandwagon. And these trends are not just happening in developed markets, but rather emerging markets are leading the charge – even if penetration rates are lower there than in the richer countries. The robotic usage growth is rapid in emerging markets, but the penetration of robotic density per 10,000 workers in China, Brazil and India is less than 10% of that in Japan and Germany (< 20% penetration of the U.S.), according to IFR World Robotics. As a matter of fact, IFR is forecasting that China will be the top robot market by 2014.
What does this mean for jobs? Not great news if you are a low-skilled worker. Take Foxconn, the company that manufactures and assembles those nifty Apple iPhones (AAPL) that are selling by the millions and generating billions in profits. The harsh working conditions in these so-called massive sweatshops have resulted in suicides and high profile worker backlashes. Related to these issues, Foxconn dealt with at least 17 suicides over a five year period. What is Foxconn’s response? Well, besides attempting to respond to worker grievances, Foxconn chairman Terry Gou announced plans to produce 1 million robots in three years , which will replace about 500,000 jobs….ouch!
As the New York Times points out, the “Rise of Machines” is not about to result in Terminator-like robots taking over the world anytime soon:
“Even though blue-collar jobs will be lost, more efficient manufacturing will create skilled jobs in designing, operating and servicing the assembly lines, as well as significant numbers of other kinds of jobs in the communities where factories are.”
Many companies see this trend accelerating and are investing aggressively to profit from the robotic automation and productivity benefits. In today’s day and age, Paul Bunyan would have surely taken advantage of these trends, just as I plan to through Sidoxia Capital Management’s opportunistic investments in the robotic sector.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), AMZN, and AAPL, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in Foxconn/Hon Hai, Crate & Barrel, SPLS, GPS, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Autumn, Elections and Replacement Refs
Article is an excerpt from previously released Sidoxia Capital Management’s complementary October 1, 2012 newsletter. Subscribe on right side of page.
As September has come to a close, the grand finale of our annual seasons has commenced… autumn. How do we know autumn is here? Well, for starters, the leaves are changing colors; the weather is about to cool; and the NFL replacement referees are watching Sunday football games from their couches.
While 2012 is split into quarters, football games and investment seasons are also divided into four quarters. Right now, the economic fourth quarter has just started and the home team is winning. As we can see from the stock market scoreboard, the S&P 500 index is up +15% this year (+6% in Q3) and the NASDAQ index has catapulted +20% through September (+6% also in Q3). The U.S. home team is winning, but a fumble, blocked kick, or interception could mean the difference between an exciting win and a devastating loss.
Another game divided into four parts is the game of presidential politics. However, presidential elections are divided into four years – not four quarters. Five weeks from now, we’ll find out if our Commander in Chief Obama will get to lead our team for another game lasting four years, or whether backup quarterback Mit Romney will be called into the game. The fans are getting restless due to anemic growth and lingering joblessness, but for now, the coach is keeping the president in the starting lineup. Both President Obama and Governor Romney will take some head-to-head practice snaps against each other in the first of three scheduled presidential debates beginning this week.
Bernanke Changes Rules
The New York Jets have Tim Tebow for their secret weapon (1 for 1 yesterday!), and the United States economy has Ben Bernanke. Although our home team may be winning, it has required some monetary rule-changing policies to be instituted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to keep our team in the lead. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Bernake instituted QE3 (3rd round of quantitative easing), which is an open-ended mortgage buying program designed to lower home buying interest rates and stimulate the economy (see Helicopter Ben to QE3 Rescue). The short-term benefits of the $40 billion monthly bond buying binge are relatively clear (lower borrowing costs for homebuyers), but the longer-term costs of inflation are stewing patiently on the backburner.
Source: Calafia Beach Pundit (Scott Grannis)
As you can see from the chart above, August median home prices are up +10% for existing single-family homes over the last year. Housing affordability is at extremely attractive levels, and although the bank loan purse strings are tight, a modest loosening is beginning to unfold.
Economy Playing Injured
Our starters may still be playing, but many are injured, just like the jobless are limping through the employment market. Encouragingly, although unemployment remains stubbornly high, the number of people collecting unemployment checks is a lot lower (-1.25 million fewer than a year ago). Not great news, but at least we are hobbling in the right direction (see chart below).
Source: Calafia Beach Pundit (Scott Grannis)
Time for Fiscal Cliff Hail Mary?
If a team is losing at the end of a game, a “Hail Mary” pass might be necessary. We are quickly nearing this fiscal Armageddon situation as the approximately $700 billion “fiscal cliff” (a painful combo of spending cuts and tax hikes) kicks in at the end of the year (see PIMCO chart below via The Reformed Broker).
Running trillion dollar deficits in perpetuity is not a sustainable strategy, so for most people, a combination of spending cuts and/or tax hikes makes sense to narrow the gap (see chart below). Last year’s recommendations from the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which were ignored, are not a bad place to start. What happens in the lame-duck session of Congress (after the elections) will dramatically impact the score of the current economic game, and decide who wins and who loses.
Source: Calafia Beach Pundit (Scott Grannis)
Heated debates continue on how the gap between expenses and revenues will be narrowed, but regardless, Democrats will continue to push for capital gains tax hikes on the rich (see tax chart below); and the Republicans will push to cut spending on entitlements, including untenable programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
The game is not quite over, but the fourth quarter promises to be a bloody battle. So while the replacement refs may be back at home, the experienced returning refs have been known to blow calls too. Let’s just hope that autumn, the season of bounteous fecundity, ends up being a continued trend of sweet market success, rather than a political period of botched opportunities.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Fiscal Cliff: Will a 1937 Repeat = 2013 Dead Meat?
Source: StockCharts.com
The presidential election is upon us and markets around the globe are beginning to factor in the results. More importantly, in my view, will be the post-election results of the “fiscal cliff” discussions, which will determine whether $600 billion in automated spending cuts and tax increases will be triggered. Similar dynamics in 1937 existed when President FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) felt pressure to balance the budget after his 1933 New Deal stimulus package began to rack up deficits and lose steam.
What’s Similar Today
Just as there is pressure to cut spending today by Republicans and “Tea-Party” Congressmen, so too there was pressure for FDR and the Federal Reserve in 1937 to unwind fiscal and monetary stimulus. At the time, FDR thought self-sustaining growth had been restored and there was a belief that the deficits would become a drag on expansion and a source of future inflation. What’s more, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, believed that continued economic growth was dependent on business confidence, which in turn was dependent on creating a balanced budget. History has a way of repeating itself, which explains why the issues faced in 1937 are eerily similar to today’s discussions.
The Results
FDR was successful in dramatically reducing spending and significantly increasing taxes. Specifically, federal spending was reduced by -17% over two years and FDR’s introduction of a Social Security payroll tax contributed to federal revenues increasing by a whopping +72% over a similar timeframe. The good news was the federal deficit fell from -5.5% of GDP to -0.5%. The bad news was the economy went into a tail-spinning recession; the Dow crashed approximately -50%; and the unemployment rate burst higher by about +3.3% to +12.5%.
Source: New York Times
Source: Blue Mass Group
What’s Different This Time?
For starters, one difference between 1937 and 2012 is the level of unemployment. In 1937, unemployment was +14.3%, and today it is +8.1%. Objectively, today there could be higher percentage of the population “under-employed,” but nonetheless the job market was in worse shape back then and labor unions had much more power.
Another major difference is the stance carried by the Fed. Today, Ben Bernanke and the Fed have made it crystal clear they are in no hurry to take away any of the monetary stimulus (see Hekicopter Ben QE3 article), until we have experienced a long-lasting, sustainable recovery. Back in early 1937, the Fed increased banks’ reserve requirements twice, doubling the requirement in less than a year, thereby contracting monetary supply drastically.
Furthermore, we live in a much more globalized world. Today, central banks and governments around the world are doing their part to keep growth alive. Emerging markets are large enough now to move the needle and impact the growth of developed markets. For example, China, the #2 global superpower, continues to cut interest rates and has recently implemented a $158 billion infrastructure spending program.
Net-Net
Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, everyone generally agrees that job creation is an important common objective, which is consistent with growing our economy. The disagreement between parties stems from the differing opinions on what are the best ways of creating jobs. From my perch, the frame of the debate should be premised on what policies and incentives should be structured to increase competitiveness. Without competitiveness there are no jobs. At the end of the day, money and capital are agnostic. Cold hard cash migrates to the countries in which it is treated best. And where the money goes is where the jobs go.
There is no single silver bullet to solve the competiveness concerns of the United States. Like baseball (since playoffs are quickly approaching), winning is not based solely on hitting, pitching, defense, or base-running. All of these facets and others are required to win. The same principles apply to our country’s competitiveness.
In order to be a competitive leader in the 21st century, here are few necessary areas in which we must excel:
Education: Chicago school unions have been in the news, and I have no problems with unions, if accountability can be structured in. Unfortunately, however, it is clear to me that for now our system is broken (a must see: Waiting for Superman). We cannot compete in the 21st century with an illiterate, uneducated workforce. Our colleges and universities are still top-notch, but as Bill Gates has stated, our elementary schools and high schools are “obsolete”.
Entitlements: Social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare are critical, but unsustainable promises that explode our debt and deficits will not make us more competitive. Politicians may gain votes by making promises in the short-run, but when those promises can’t be delivered in the medium-run or long-run, then those votes will disappear quickly. The sworn guarantees made to the 76 million Baby Boomers now entering retirement are a disaster waiting to happen. Benefits need to be reduced and or criteria need to be adjusted (i.e., means-testing, increase age requirements). The problems are clear as day, so Americans cannot walk away from this sobering reality.
Strategic Government Investment: – Government played a role in building our country’s railways, highways, and our military – a few strategic areas of our economy that have made our nation great. Thoughtful investments into areas like energy infrastructure (e.g., smart grid), internet infrastructure (e.g., higher speed super highway), and healthcare (e.g., human genome research) are a few examples of how jobs can be created while simultaneously increasing our global competitiveness. The great thing about strategic government investments is that government does NOT have to do all the heavy lifting. Rather than write all the checks and do all the job creation from Washington, government can implement these investments and create these jobs by providing incentives for the private sector. Strategic public-private partnerships can generate win-win results for government, businesses, and job seekers. If, however, you’re convinced that our government is more efficient than the private sector, then I highly encourage you to go visit your local DMV, post office, or VA to better appreciate the growth-sucking bureaucracy and inefficiency.
Taxes / Regulations / Laws: Taxes come from profits, and businesses create profits. In order to have a strong and competitive government, we need strong and competitive businesses. Higher taxes, excessive regulations, and burdensome laws will not create stronger and more competitive businesses. I acknowledge that reckless neglect and consumer exploitation will not work either, but reasonable protections for consumers and businesses can be instituted without multi-thousand page regulations. Reducing ridiculous subsidies and loopholes, while tightening tax collection processes and punishing tax dodgers makes perfect sense…so why not do it?
Politics are sharply polarized at both ends of the spectrum, but no matter who wins, our problems are not going away. We may or may not have a new president of the United States this November, but perhaps more important than the elections themselves will be the outcome of the “fiscal cliff” legislation (or lack thereof). If we want to maintain our economic power as the strongest in the world, solving this “fiscal cliff” is the key to improving our competiveness. Avoiding a messy 1937 (and 2011) political repeat will prevent us from becoming dead meat.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Helicopter Ben to QE3 Rescue
Faster than a speedy credit default swap, more powerful than a federal funds interest rate cut, and able to leap a tall Mario Draghi in a single bound, look…it’s Helicopter Ben! How did Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke become a monetary superhero with such a cool nickname as Helicopter Ben (a.k.a. “HB”)? Bernanke, a former Princeton University professor, has widely been known to be a diligent student of the Great Depression, and his aviation nickname stems from a 2002 speech in which he referenced dropping money from a helicopter to combat deflation. While investors may worry about HB’s ability to fight the inflation thugs, there should be no questions about his willingness to implement accommodative, deflation-fighting monetary policies.
Chairman Bernanke may not epitomize your ideal superhero, however this slightly past middle-aged bearded and balding man has helped mastermind some of the most creative and aggressive monetary rescue efforts our country and globe has seen in the history of man (and woman). This week’s money-printing QE3 announcement solidified Bernanke’s historic capital saturating ranking.
Since Helicopter Ben’s heroic appointment as Federal Reserve Chairman in 2006 by George W. Bush, Bernanke has instituted numerous monetary gadgets in hopes of meeting the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, which is i) to achieve low inflation and ii) to strive for maximum employment. Arguably, given the anemic growth here in the U.S.; the recession in Europe; and slowing growth in the emerging markets (i.e., China, Brazil, India, etc.), slack in the economy and static labor wages have largely kept inflation in check. With the first part of the dual mandate met, Bernanke has had no problem putting his monetary superpowers to work.
As referenced earlier, Bernanke’s bazooka launch of QE3, an open ended MBS (Mortgage Back Securities) bond binging program, will add $40 billion of newly purchased assets to the Fed’s balance sheet on a monthly basis until the labor market improves “substantially” (whatever that means). What’s more, in addition to the indefinite QE3, Bernanke has promised to keep the federal funds rate near zero “at least through mid-2015,” even for a “considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.”
HB’s Track Record
Throughout superhero history, Superman, Spider-man, and Batman have used a wide-array of superhuman powers, extraordinary gadgets, and superior intellect to conquer evil-doers and injustices across the globe. Bernanke has also forcefully put his unrivaled money-printing talents to work in an attempt to cure the financial ills of the world. Here’s a quick multi-year overview of how Bernanke has put his unique talents to print trillions of dollars and keep interest rates suppressed:
Rate Cuts (September 2007 – December 2008): Before “quantitative easing” was a part of our common vernacular, the Fed relied on more traditional monetary policies, such as federal funds rate targeting, conducted through purchases and sales of open market securities. Few investors recall, but before HB’s fed funds rate cut rampage of 10 consecutive reductions in 2007 and 2008 (the fed funds rate went from 5.25% to effectively 0%), Bernanke actually increased rates three times in 2006.
Crisis Actions (2007 – 2009): Love him or hate him, Bernanke has been a brave and busy soul in dealing with the massive proportions of the global financial crisis. If you don’t believe me, just check out the Financial Crisis Timeline listed at the St. Louis Federal Reserve. Many investors don’t remember, but Bernanke helped orchestrate some of the largest and most unprecedented corporate actions in our history, including the $30 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase (JPM) in the Bear Stearns takeover; the $182 billion bailout of AIG; the conversion of Morgan Stanley (MS) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) into bank holding companies; and the loan/asset-purchase support to Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC). These actions represented just the tip of the iceberg, if you also consider the deluge of liquidity actions taken by the Fed Chairman.
HB Creates Acronym Soup
In order to provide a flavor of the vastness in emergency programs launched since the crisis, here is an alphabet soup of program acronyms into which the Fed poured hundreds of billions of dollars:
- Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF)
- Term Auction Facility (TAF)
- Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF)
- Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF)
- Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF)
- Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF)
- Temporary Reciprocal Currency Arrangements (Swap lines)
- Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF)
Plenty of acronyms to go around, but these juicy programs have garnered most of investors’ attention:
QE1 (November 2008 – March 2010): In hopes of lowering interest rates for borrowers and stimulating the economy, HB spearheaded the Fed’s multi-step, $1 trillion+ buying program of MBS (mortgage backed securities) and Treasuries.
QE2 (November 2010 – June 2011): Since the Fed felt QE1 didn’t pack enough monetary punch to keep the economy growing at a fast enough clip, the FOMC (Federal Open Market committee) announced its decision to expand its holdings of securities in November 2010. The Committee maintained its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings and to also purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011 (an equivalent pace of about $75 billion per month).
Operation Twist (September 2011 – December 2012): What started out as a $400 billion short-term debt for longer-term debt swap program in September 2011, expanded to a $667 billion program in June 2012. With short-term rates excessively low, Bernanke came up with this Operation Twist scheme previously used in the early 1960s. Designed to flatten the yield curve (bring down long-term interest rates) to stimulate economic activity, Bernanke thought this program was worth another go-around. Unlike quantitative easing, Operation Twist does not expand the Fed’s balance sheet – the program merely swaps short-term securities for long-term securities. Currently, the program is forecasted to conclude at the end of this year.
The Verdict on HB
So what’s my verdict on the continuous number of unprecedented actions that Helicopter Ben and the Fed have taken? Well for starters, I have to give Mr. Bernanke an “A-” on his overall handling of the financial crisis. Had his extreme actions not been taken, the pain and agony experienced by all would likely be significantly worse, and the financial hole a lot deeper.
With that said, am I happy about the announcement of QE3 and the explosion in the Fed’s money printing activities? The short answer is “NO”. It’s difficult to support a program with questionable short-run interest rate benefits, when the menacing inflationary pressures are likely to outweigh the advantages. The larger problem in my mind is the massive fiscal problem we are experiencing (over $16 trillion in debt and endless trillion dollar deficits). More importantly, this bloated fiscal position is creating an overarching, nagging crisis of confidence. A resolution to the so-called “fiscal cliff,” or the automated $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts, is likely to have a more positive impact on confidence than a 0.05% – 0.25% reduction in mortgage rates from QE3. Once adequate and sustained growth returns, and inflation rears its ugly head, how quickly Helicopter Ben tightens policy will be his key test.
Until then, Bernanke will probably continue flying around while gloating in his QE3 cape, hoping his quantitative easing program will raise general confidence. Unfortunately, his more recent monetary policies appear to be creating diminishing returns. Even before QE3’s implementation, Helicopter Ben has witnessed his policies expand the Fed’s balance sheet from less than $900 billion at the beginning of the recession to almost $3 trillion today. Despite these gargantuan efforts, growth and confidence have been crawling forward at only a modest pace.
No matter the outcome of QE3, as long as Ben Bernanke remains Federal Reserve Chairman, and growth remains sluggish, you can stay confident this financial man of steel will continue dumping money into the system from his helicopter. If Bernanke wants to create a true legendary superhero ending to this story, the kryptonite-like effects of inflation need to be avoided. This means, less money-printing and more convincing of Congress to take action on our out-of-control debt and deficits. Now, that’s a comic book I’d pay to read.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions in JPM, AIG, MS, GS, FNMA, FMCC, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Decision Making on Freeways and in Parking Lots
Many drivers here in California adhere to the common freeway speed limit of 65 miles per hour, while some do not (I’ll take the 5th). In the vast majority of cases, racing to your destination at these faster speeds makes perfect sense. However, driving 65 mph through the shopping mall parking lot could get you killed, so slower driving is preferred in this instance. Ultimately, the specific environment and situation will dictate the rational and prudent driving speed. Decision making works in much the same way, and Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, has encapsulated his decades of research in psychology and economics in his most recent book, Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Much of Kahneman’s big ideas are analyzed through the lenses of “System 1” and “System 2” – the fast and slow decision-making processes persistently used by our brains. System 1 thinking is our intuition in the fast lane, continually making judgments in real-time. Our System 1 hunches are often correct, but because of speedy, inherent biases and periodic errors this process can cause us to miss an off-ramp or even cause a conclusion collision. System 2, on the other hand, is the slower, methodical decision-making process in our brains that keeps our hasty System 1 process in check. Although little mental energy is exerted by using System 1, a great deal of cerebral horsepower is required to use System 2.
Summarizing 512 pages of Kahneman’s book in a single article may be challenging, nevertheless I will do my best to summarize some of the interesting highlights and anecdotes. A multitude of Kahneman’s research is reviewed, but a key goal of the book is designed to help individuals identify errors in judgment and biases, in order to lower the prevalence of mental mistakes in the future.
Over Kahneman’s 50+ year academic career, he has uncovered an endless string of flaws in the human thought process. To bring those mistakes to life, he uses several mind experiments to illustrate them. Here are a few:
Buying Baseball: We’ll start off with a simple Kahneman problem. If a baseball bat and a ball cost a total of $1.10, and the bat costs $1 more than the ball, then how much does the ball cost? The answer is $0.10, right? WRONG! Intuition and the rash System 1 forces most people to answer $0.10 cents for the ball, but after going through the math it becomes clear that this gut answer is wrong. If the ball is $0.10 and the bat is $1 more, then that would mean the bat costs $1.10, making the total $1.20…WRONG! This is clearly a System 2 problem, which requires the brain to see a $0.05 ball plus $1.05 bat equals $1.10…CORRECT!
The Invisible Gorilla: As Kahneman points out, humans can be blind to the obvious and blind to our blindness. To make this point he references an experiment and book titled Invisible Gorilla, created by Chritopher Chabris and Daniel Simons. In the experiment, three players wearing white outfits pass a basketball around at the same time that a group of players wearing black outfits pass around a separate basketball. The anomaly in the experiment occurs when someone in a full-sized gorilla outfit goes prancing through the scene for nine full seconds. To the surprise of many, about half of the experiment observers do not see the gorilla. In addition, the gorilla-blind observers deny the existence of the large, furry animal when confronted with recorded evidence (see video below).
Green & Red Dice: In this thought experiment, Kahneman describes a group presented with a regular six-sided die with four green sides (G) and two red sides (R), meaning the probability of the die landing on green (G) is is much higher than the probability of landing on red (R). To make the experiment more interesting, the group is provided a cash prize for picking the highest probability scenario out of the following three sequences: 1) R-G-R-R-R; 2) G-R-G-R-R-R; and 3) G-R-R-R-R-R. Although most participants pick sequence #2 because it has the most greens (G) in it, if one looks more closely, sequence #2 is the same as #1 except for sequence #2 has an additional green (G). Therefore, the highest probability winning answer should be sequence #1 because sequence #2 adds an uncertain roll that may or may not land on green (G).
While the previous experiments described some notable human decision-making flaws, here are some more human flaws:
Anchoring Effect: Was Gandhi 114 when he died, or was Gandhi 35 when he died? Depending how the question is asked, asking the initial question first will skew the respondents answer to a higher age, because the respondents answer will be somewhat anchored to the number “114”. Similarly, the price a homebuyer would pay for a house will be influenced or anchored to the asking price. Another word used by some for anchoring is “suggestion”. If a subliminal suggestion is planted, people’s responses can become anchored to that idea.
Overconfidence: We encounter overconfidence in several forms, especially from what Kahneman calls the “Illusion of Pundits,” which is the confidence that comes with 20-20 hindsight experienced in our 24/7 media world. Or as Kahneman states in a different way, “The illusion that we understand the past fosters overconfidence in our ability to predict the future.” Driving is another example of overconfidence – very few people believe they are poor drivers. In fact, a well-known study shows that “90% of drivers believe they are better than average,” despite defying the laws of mathematics.
Risk Aversion: In Kahneman’s book, he also references risk aversion studies by Mathew Rabin and Richard Thaler. What the researchers discovered is that people appear to be irrational in the way they respond to certain risk scenarios. For example, people will turn down the following gambles:
A 50% chance to lose $100 and a 50% chance to win $200;
OR
A 50% chance to lose $200 and a 50% chance to win $20,000 .
Although rational math would indicate these are smart bets to take, however most people decline the game because humans on average weigh losses twice as much as gains (see also the Pleasure/Pain Principle). To get a better understanding of predictive human behavior, the real emotional costs of disappointment and regret need to be accounted for.
Truth Illusions: A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is through repetition. More exposure will breed more liking. In addition to normal conversations, these repetitive truth illusions can be witnessed in propaganda or advertising. Minimizing cognitive strain also reinforces points. Using bold, colored, and contrasted language is more convincing. Simpler language rather than more complex language is also more credible.
Narrative Fallacies: We humans have an innate desire to continually explain the causation of an event due to skill or stupidity – even if randomness is the best explanation.People try to make sense of the world, even though many outcomes have no straightforward explanation. Often times, a statistical phenomenon like “regression to the mean” can explain the results (i.e., outliers revert directionally toward averages). The “Sports Illustrated Jinx,” or the claim that a heralded cover story athlete will be subsequently cursed with bad performance, is used as a case in point. Actually, there is no jinx or curse, but often fickle luck disappears and athletic performance reverts to norms.
Kahneman on Stocks
Many of the principles in Kahneman’s book can be applied to the world of stocks and investing too. According to Kahneman, the investing industry has been built on an “illusion of skill,” or the belief that one person has better information than the other person. To make his point, Kahneman references research by Terry Odean, a finance professor at UC Berkely, who studied the records of 10,000 brokerage accounts of individual investors spanning a seven-year period and covering almost 163,000 trades. The net result showed dramatic underperformance by the individual traders and confirmed that stocks sold by the traders consistently did better than the stocks purchased.“Taking a shower and doing nothing” would have been better than the value destroying trading activity. In fact, the most active traders did much worse than those who traded the least. For professional managers the conclusions are not a whole lot different. “For a large majority of fund managers, the selection of stocks is more like rolling dice than like playing poker. Typically at least two out of every three mutual funds underperform the overall market in any given year,” says Kahneman. I don’t disagree, but I do believe, like .300 hitters in baseball, there are a few managers that can consistently outperform.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow and I apply many of his conclusions to my investment practice at Sidoxia. We all race through decisions every day, but as he repeatedly points out, familiarizing ourselves with these common mental pitfalls, and also utilizing our more methodical and accurate System 2 thought process regularly, can create better decisions. Better decisions not only for our regular lives, but also for our investing lives. It’s perfectly OK to race down the mental freeway at 65 mph (or faster), but don’t forget to slow down occasionally, in order to avoid mental collisions.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Sun Breaking through Stormy Financial Clouds?
The ominous economic storm clouds have been looming for quite some time now. And with the lingering European financial crisis, U.S. Presidential elections, and a pending “fiscal cliff” coming to a head in the next few months, investors have their umbrellas firmly in hand. While average investors have been running for shelter, the stock market has been shining. In addition to the +2% gain in August, stocks have advanced about +12% in 2012 and about +20% from a year ago, as measured by the S&P 500 index. The move in the Nasdaq Composite index has been even brighter, surging +18% higher this year and about +25% from a year ago (quite a bit different from Bill Gross’s “Cult of Equity” 4% return expectations).
Here is a look of 1-year returns provided by Mark Perry at Carpe Diem a week and a half ago:
A big driver for these positive returns are record corporate profits:
Despite the positive returns and record profits, investors remain terrified. How scared are people about potential economic thunder and lightning? According to Scott Grannis at Calafia Beach Pundit, savings deposits have increased by a staggering $2.4 trillion over the past four years, which is effectively losing 2-3% in annual value to inflation. I don’t know when negative sentiment will turn positive, but when it does, there is a lot of pent up demand for consumption and investment.
Death to Uncertainty
The markets hate uncertainty. This cliché is often referenced, but the truth is…there is always uncertainty. More aptly stated, the markets hate additional uncertainty. So whether you are a Republican or Democrat, the mere fact the elections will be over in November may be enough to lower uncertainty and lift some of the gloomy financial clouds. Republicans hope for fiscal sanity to return with a win by the Romney ticket, but the market may favor an Obama victory because it likes the devil it knows rather than the one it doesn’t. The race is very close now, and as always, the Independents will determine which party ultimately wins.
When discussion shifts to the impending “fiscal cliff” (automatic tax hikes and spending cuts), voter patience wears thinner – inaction is no longer a sustainable political strategy. If you don’t believe me, then just reference the record-low Congressional approval rating. Incumbents looking for re-election will have to set forth credible solutions to these serious fiscal problems, or suffer the consequences. Voters are serious now, and a “do-nothing” strategy will only lead to an early retirement, not a cushy paycheck in Washington D.C.
The corporate world is watching closely too. Tight-fisted executives sitting on trillions of dollars in cash are looking for some direction. No matter who wins, by knowing the direction of future policy changes, executive optimism is likely to spur incremental growth.
Be Prepared & Pack Your Sunglasses
Admittedly, recent economic data hasn’t been overly rosy, and there are no immediate signs of a bright and shiny economic day. Although not surprising, given the constant media attention, European economic activity has fallen into recession. In our backyard, U.S. GDP growth decelerated in second quarter to 1.5% from 2.0% from the previous quarter, and job growth has stalled. In Asia, economic figures out of China continue to generate lackluster trends. As strategist Ed Yardeni points out, “August manufacturing activity fell to a nine-month low with the new export orders index the lowest in three years.”
On the surface, the uninspiring economic data would suggest to investors to pack their bags and move into a bunker. However, what shrewd investors realize is that trading with economic trends is not an optimal strategy. Following such logic would have led investors to pile in buying at the peak of 2007 and panic sell at the bottom in early 2009. Much of the recent economic news is nothing to write home about, and the information has already been factored into current prices and expectations. The real trick is determining the state of affairs 12-18 months from now, which is not an easy task. So while current data is fragile at best, governments and central banks across the globe have been aggressively cutting rates, implementing fiscal stimulus, and positioning for further monetary policy support. What’s more, consumers and corporations have deleveraged (cut debt) significantly, and governments are currently going through this painful process.
Sell in May and Regret Away
As the weakening data started to roll out at the beginning of spring, so-called market pundits were quick to point out the seasonal trade to “Sell in May and go away.” Well, if you followed that strategy, you may have slept better, but you not only would have incurred significant transaction costs and taxes, but also given up some capital gains and dividends. September and October have traditionally been volatile months, so the financial market gods may still have something to say.
Weather forecasting and financial forecasting are difficult professions. Even though the economic weather has been cloudy recently, if you are relying too heavily on your umbrella and galoshes, the next few months should help determine whether it’s time to bust out your sunglasses and sunscreen rather than a heavy raincoat.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in Barclays or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Investing Caffeine 
