The Internet: The Fourth Necessity
The basic necessities for human life are food, water, shelter and most importantly…the internet. Imagine a world where you cannot: access your email; text your spouse or significant other in the same house; Twitter the contents of your lunch; or Facebook a YouTube video of a dancing meringue dog (see video). Scary thought.
Many people take the internet for granted, just like the air we breathe, but how important a role does the internet play in people’s lives? Mary Meeker, internet analyst from Morgan Stanley, takes a look at this question in a recently released presentation she completed. Earlier in the decade, Meeker was raked over the coals during the deflation of the internet bubble, but in many respects she has been redeemed in the subsequent years as hundreds of millions of people continue to plug into the internet.
According to the broad base of expert strategists, we apparently are living in an overvalued, “New Normal ” market with subdued growth for as far as the eye can see (check out New Abnormal). In the mean time Meeker shows how the top 15 global internet franchises have nearly quadrupled revenue from $33 billion in 2004 to $126 billion today. Perhaps abnormally outsized opportunities in the corporate internet universe will be the “New Normal” over the coming years?
Internet Ubiquity
Source: Morgan Stanley
How ubiquitous is the internet becoming? Last year 1.8 billion people accessed this invisible global flattening medium we like to call the internet, and users spent 18.8 trillion minutes online, up +21% over the previous year. Many people are very familiar with the home-bred internet franchises of Facebook (620 million users), Google (940 million users), and Apple (120 million internet device users), but many investors under-appreciate the global scale of international internet franchises like Tencent (637 million users…more than Facebook by the way), Baidu ($40 billion market value), or Alibaba.com ($10 billion market value).
Source: Morgan Stanley
Mobile ubiquity is on the rise too. Connecting through a desktop or laptop is not enough these days, so internet addicts are increasingly attaching a mobile phone umbilical cord for such useful bathroom applications such as this (click here). Lugging a laptop around all over the place can be an inconvenience. So primal is the mobile instinct among internet users, Morgan Stanley expects mobile phone shipments to surpass PC and laptop shipments over the next 24 months.
What’s Next?
The party is just getting started. If you just consider eCommerce (purchases online), which only accounts for 4% of total commerce conducted in the U.S., then there is a lot of headroom for internet purchases to expand. The incredible potential rings true especially if you contemplate old traditional catalog, which peaked at more than 10% of overall commerce according to some industry executives. The rich feature functionality afforded to users through the internet, coupled with the increased convenience of mobility, augur well for future ecommerce sales growth.
The internet has been around for 15 years, but in the whole scheme of things this transformative medium is just a baby – especially if you consider the amount of time it took other revolutions like electricity, the rail network, and automobile proliferation to spread. That is why it is not too late to join the internet party. Food, water, and shelter are human necessities of life, just like exposure to the internet revolution is a necessity for your investment portfolio.
Read the Morgan Stanley Internet Presentation by Mary Meeker
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, AAPL and GOOG, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in MS, BIDU, Tencent, Alibaba.com, Facebook, Twitter, 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.
The Cyclical Seasons of Growth and Value
Continually the airwaves rotate through the growth and value managers du jour, and like religious zealots each one explains their philosophy with such confidence that Jersey Shore’s “The Situation” would even call them cocky. The fact of the matter is that styles go in and out of favor like the seasons of the year. What’s more, the consistency of the seasons is erratic and the duration of the style outperformance can in many instances extend for years. A major driver behind the relative outperformance of styles links back to where we stand in the economic cycle. Since these phases can last for years, meticulous precision is not required.
Case in point, take the “Go-Go” 1990s. In the back half of the decade, while the “New Economy” of technology companies propelled GDP to new heights, growth stocks witnessed historic price appreciation and P/E (Price-Earnings) multiple expansion. As members of our growth team high-fived each other on a daily basis, the “Four Horsemen” consistently jumped 2-3% like clockwork. Simultaneously, human resources had to keep sharp objects away from our value team colleagues and make sure the windows were locked shut. As you can see from the chart, growth stocks trounced value stocks during that period.
Source: INGdelivers.com
Karma can be a bi*ch however, because as the technology bubble burst in 2000, the coiled underperforming value stocks sprang to significant outperformance in the first half of the 2000s. The value managers were more than happy to hand over the straightjackets to us growth managers.
Since these style cycles can persist for long periods of time, and we managers get compensated based on performance versus peers, there is a strong incentive to cheat or style drift towards the outperforming style (see also Hail Mary Investing).
The pain threshold is increasing for value managers as the economic expansion matures and growth stocks have handily outperformed value stocks over the last five years. When value managers start piling into Apple Inc. (AAPL), maybe the value cycle will be ready to kick into gear again.
Growth consistently outperforming value (Source: Russell Investments)
- Source: Dynamic Hedge – Is value on the comeback trail?
Arbitrary Style Buckets
Understanding the dynamics of style outperformance cycles is important, but understanding how the sausage is made at the micro level is essential too. One must appreciate that style categorizations are determined by arbitrary criteria by self-anointed “bucket deciders” (i.e., S&P, Barra, Russell Investments). Like ping pong balls, individual stocks will bounce around from one style bucket to the other based largely on share price volatility and financial metrics such as Price/Book, Price/Earnings, and EPS growth. Regrettably, these metrics can become temporarily distorted and lead to irrational trading patterns for benchmark hugging managers that become myopically focused on minor deviations from the herd.
Based on the stock bucket decision criteria, some questionable head-scratching stock categorizations may occur. For examples International Business Machines (IBM) is classified as a growth stock in the Russell 1000 Growth Index despite a cheap forward 11x P/E multiple, meager 3% revenue growth, and a 2% dividend. Phillip Morris Intl (PM) is also considered a growth stock even though its revenue growth has recently been even more sluggish at 2%, and has a mouth watering value-like dividend of 4.4%.
On the flip side, stocks like Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) are thrown in the value bucket, although the software king grew revenues +25% and earnings +55% in the recent quarter. Iconic value stock Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA/B) follows many growth stocks by not paying a dividend, and the Buffett controlled entity trades at a sky-high trailing P/E multiple of 20x, and ironically expanded sales and earnings by +21% and +28%, respectively.
All this talk of style seasons and bucket hopping only highlights the boring but crucial principle of diversification. It’s important to understand these cycles and categorizations, especially at extremes, but this does not get rid of the fact that an overly concentrated portfolio concentrated in an outperforming style is setting itself up for failure (see also Riding the Wave). We’ve reviewed cycle dynamics surrounding investment styles, but these varied securities come in all shapes and sizes – we will tackle the relative performance forces of small, mid, and large capitalization stocks during another season.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, AAPL and CSCO, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in ORCL, EMC, IBM, PM, MSFT, BRKA/B, 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.
Opening the Broker Departure Floodgates
Even though the equity markets have rebounded massively, investors remain in a sour mood in light of sluggish domestic economic headlines. Technology, for example High Frequency Trading (HFT – read more), along with the harsh realities of financial regulatory reform is creating profit growth challenges for the global financial gargantuans. More specifically, the floodgates have sprung open with respect to broker departures from the big four brokerage firms.
According to Bloomberg, more than 7,300 brokers have left the four largest full-service brokerage firms (Merrill Lynch [BAC], Morgan Stanley Smith Barney [MS], UBS Wealth Management [UBS], and Wells Fargo Advisors [WFC]) since the beginning of 2009. But the brokers have not floated away quietly – more than $1 trillion in assets have fled these major brokerage firms and followed the brokers to their new employers.
Several factors have led to the deluge of departures of bodies and bucks:
1) Mergers: The financial crisis triggered an all-out economic assault on the brokerage firm industry. A subsequent game of musical chairs resulted in the marriage of disparate cultures (e.g., B of A-Merrill; Morgan Stanley-Smith Barney; Wells Fargo-Wachovia). Not only did the clashing cultures rub brokers the wrong way, but the surviving executives were left with redundant and unproductive brokers to cut.
2) Heightened Recruiting: With a shrinking pie and less growth comes more fierce competition. The discount brokerage firms have realized the Darwinian challenges and reacted to them accordingly. Take TD Ameritrade (AMTD) for example. In the first seven months of 2010, the discount brokerage firm added 212 independent advisers to its network, a +44% increase over the previous year. Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) with its network of 6,000 independent advisers is also ratcheting up its efforts to poach brokers away from the large brokerage firms.
3) Economics: Would you like 40-50% of profits generated from new clients, or 80-100%? In many instances, the broker from the large branded institution funnels the majority of the commissions to the mother-ship. Sure, the broker receives back-office, marketing, and branding support, but some brokers are now asking themselves is the brand an asset or liability? Wall Street has gotten a large black eye and it will take time to heal their corporate images…if they ever manage to succeed at all.
4) Customer Choice: Lastly, and most importantly, customers are voting with their dollars. As I have indicated in the past, I strongly believe the current system is structurally flawed (see Financial Sharks article). Financial institutions craft incentives designed to line the pockets of brokers (salespeople) and prioritize corporate profits over client wealth creation and preservation. The existing failed industry structure is based upon smoke, mirrors, opacity, and small print. Many independent, fee-only advisors are structuring financial relationships that align with portfolio performance and make transparency a top priority. Customers appreciate these benefits and are shifting dollars away from the brokerage firms.
LPL Loving IPO Life
If you are having a difficult time processing the magnitude of this investment advice shift, then consider the $4.4 billion estimated value being placed on the planned IPO (Initial Public Offering) of LPL Financial, the independent brokerage firm of 12,000+ financial advisors. LPL serves as a conduit for legacy brokers to become independent, and still allow them to benefit from an array of ala carte support services. Growth has been strong too – over the last decade the advisor count at LPL has more than tripled and assets under their umbrella now exceed $250 billion.
The Wall Street broker floodgates have opened, so unless regulatory changes are enacted, the old flawed way of doing things will require a life support raft. If not, independent, fee-only advisors like Sidoxia Capital Management will benefit from the current sinking migration of brokers.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in BAC, MS, UBS, WFC, AMTD, SCHW, LPL Financial or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Corporate Shockers: You did *#$@% to Steve Jobs?
Source: 1funny.com
Steve Jobs recruited John Sculley to run Apple Computers (AAPL) in 1983 because the board wanted someone more experienced than a snot-nosed 28 year old founder barking orders at Apple employees. Sculley was a seasoned 15 year veteran executive from Pepsi Co. (PEP) whom was persuaded by Jobs to take over the company and join him in changing the world.
Things were all nifty until Sculley went all Brutus on Jobs and decided to fire him with board assistance in 1985 when it was believed that Jobs was poaching executives from Apple to join Jobs’s successor company, Next Computers.
The verdict may not completely be out on Sculley’s effectiveness on running Apple, but he deserves a PhD in the “Obvious Arts.” When asked if the coordinated decision (between Sculley and the Board) to fire Steve Jobs more than 25 years ago was correct, this is what Sculley had to say:
“In hindsight, I think they [board] made the wrong choice. They should have chosen Steve…we should have figured out a way to work with it [Job’s talent].”
Click Here for John Sculley Bloomberg Interview
Over his term at Apple, Sculley increased sales from $800 million to $8 billion. Good performance, but apparently not good enough, because Sculley was axed in 1993 and a window was opened for Jobs to return as Apple’s puppet-master four years later. The rest is history and AAPL stock went from about $10 per share when Sculley left all the way up to $316.65 today. Not too shabby.
In another shocker, after hiring Sculley and then getting fired by Sculley, Jobs said Sculley won’t talk to him. I can’t understand why a company founder would hold a grudge toward a hand-picked former employee who spearheaded a lynching against his boss? Well, I guess karma has a way of evening things out in the long run – redemption was found with Jobs’s climbing the Silicon Valley mountain to create the $300 billion consumer technology behemoth. I’m sure you don’t have to cry a river for John Sculley, but if he can’t control his own tears, he can always use his hundred dollar bills as tissue surrogates.
What makes Jobs’s decline and subsequent triumph even more unbelievable are the hugs and kisses Steve Jobs owes Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates. If not for a $150 million lifeline offered by Gates to Steve Jobs in August 1997, while Apple was on its financial deathbed, we may not have ever experienced the iPod, iPhone, iPad, or future overhyped consumer gadget (OK, I admit it, I have succumbed to the hype myself). I’m guessing if Bill were given another chance, he would have passed on that Apple investment and we would be stuck paying for $4,000 computers and $1,000 Microsoft Office upgrades.
As a result of these corporate shockers, several lessons can be learned. Number one: If you are hired by a company founder, be careful about firing that boss if put in that position – you could potentially be jeopardizing the creation of hundreds of billions of dollars in future value. Number two: If you are unable to successfully negotiate lesson number one, then just find someone to lend you $150 million. History has taught us lessons based on past events ranging from Prohibition to Watergate, and from Nazi Germany to Tiger Woods’s indiscretions. John Sculley also learned lessons from Apple’s corporate shockers, and so can you.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds and AAPL, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in PEP, MSFT, 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.
Sentiment Cycle of Fear and Greed
Investing can be like a cross-country emotional roller-coaster ride to retirement. There are plenty of ups and downs, and plenty of unexpected twist and turns, but as long as investors stay the course, they will eventually reach their retirement objective. If not properly kept in check, however, emotions have the potential of sabotaging and/or delaying retirement objectives.
Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture revisited the topic of sentiment cycles to hammer home the counterintuitive nature of successful investing (see also Doing the Opposite). As Ritholtz correctly points out in his chart, “euphoria” is actually the emotional “point of maximum financial risk,” and “despondency” is the “point of maximum financial opportunity.”
Source: The Big Picture with RED Sidoxia comments
In other words when the housing market was “euphoric” with demand in 2006, the financial risk was the highest, as millions of leveraged borrowers and homeowners painfully realized. Average investors suffered the reverse problem in early 2009 when “despondency” ruled the day and equity markets have marched upwards approximately +80% to +100%. Millions of investors bought real estate near the peak of the market and sold equities near the bottom of the market. Buying high and selling low is not a recipe for a retirement investment plan.
A more comedic representation of the sentiment cycle is provided below (CLICK TO ENLARGE). Laughable but spot on.
If investing was so simple, Jim Cramer would be among Forbes wealthiest top 10 and Lenny Dyskstra would have his private jet back (see story).
Where we are exactly on the sentiment cycle curve is debatable (my opinion is in RED on top chart), but if investors want to accelerate their path to financial success, they need to play the equity markets a lot more like a game of chess – anticipating future events not reacting to current ones. Too often, what appears as the obvious investment choice generates the worst long-term results. While on the investment rollercoaster, the choices that create the sweatiest palms are usually the best long-term decisions.
Read more about “Sentiment Cycles” from The Big Picture
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position 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.
Will the Fiscal Donkey Fly?
Source: TopPayingIdeas.com/blog
Will Barack Obama become a “one-termer” like somewhat recent Presidents, Democrat Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and Republican George H.W. Bush #41 (1989-1993)? Or will Obama get the Democratic donkey off the ground like Bill Clinton managed to do after the 1994 mid-term election when Republican Newt Gingrich spearheaded the Contract with America, which led to a similar Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Clinton’s approval ratings were in the dumps at the time, comparable to voter’s current lackluster opinion of Obama and his spending spree (see also Profitless Healthcare).
Source: Gallup
Reagan Rebound
Similarly, Republican Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) was picking up the pieces with his lousy approval rating after the 1982 midterm election. Tax cuts, “trickle-down” supply side economics, and a tough stance on the Russian Cold War turned around the economy and his approval rating and catapulted him to reelection in a landslide victory. Reagan carried 49 states with the help of Reagan Democrats (one-quarter of registered Democrats voted for him).
Source: The Wall Street Journal
One should be clear though, popularity is not the only factor that plays into reelection success. George H. W. Bush had the highest average approval rating in five decades (60.9% approval), only superseded by John F. Kennedy (70.1% approval). The economy, international politics, and other external factors also play a large role in the reelection process.
Flying Donkey Time?
If President Obama wants to get the Democratic donkey off the ground and raise his current approval rating of 47% and remedy his self-admitted “shellacking” by the Republicans, then he will need to shift his hard-left political agenda more towards the middle, like Clinton did in 1994. If he leads on ideology alone, then the next two years will likely be a long tough slog for him and his Democratic colleagues.
In order to shift toward the center and gain more Independent voters, Obama will need to find common ground with Republicans and Tea-Partiers. Obama has already conceded in principle to extend the Bush tax cuts, but if he wants to gain more political capital, he will have to gain some ground in the area of fiscal responsibility. With the help of a strong economy, Clinton managed to run surpluses, but front and center today is a $1.3 trillion deficit and over $13 trillion in debt. The first step in building any credibility on the issue will come on December 1st when the president’s bi-partisan commission for deficit reduction will release its report.
It will be interesting which party will show leadership in making unpopular spending cuts, just as the 2012 re-election cycle just begins. The elephants in the room are the entitlements (Medicare and Social Security), and although less talked about, efficient cuts to defense spending should be put on the table. Sure, pork barrel spending, inefficient subsidies, tax loopholes, are gaps that need to be filled, but they alone are rounding errors given our country’s unsustainable current circumstances. Whether or not politicians (red or blue) will point out the unpopular elephants in the room will be interesting to watch.
Financial irresponsibility at the consumer and corporate level were major drivers behind the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and both individuals and businesses are responsibly adjusting their expense structures and balance sheets. Our government has to wake up to reality and adjust its expense structure and balance sheet too. Although foreign countries have reacted (i.e., European austerity), egotistical American politicians on both sides of the aisle haven’t quite woken up and smelled the coffee yet. Thank goodness for the democracy that we live in because citizens are pointing to the elephants in the room and demanding reckless spending and debt levels to come under control. If President Barack Obama doesn’t want to become another one-termer, he’ll have to move more to the center and get the finances of our country under control. If the stubborn donkey refuses to deal with reality and remains flightless, hopefully an elephant or ship-full of tea partiers can get this grass roots call for fiscal sanity off the ground.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position 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.
P/E Binoculars, Not Foggy Rearview Mirror
Robert Shiller is best known for his correctly bearish forecasts on the housing market, which we are continually reminded of through the ubiquitous Case-Shiller housing index, and his aptly timed 2000 book entitled Irrational Exuberance. Shiller is also well known for his cyclically adjusted 10-year price-earnings tool, also known as P/E-10. This tool chooses to take a rearview mirror look at the 10-year rolling average of the S&P composite stock index to determine whether the equity market is currently a good or bad buy. Below average multiples are considered to be predictive of higher future returns, and higher than average multiples are considered to produce lower future returns (see scatterplot chart).
Source: http://www.mebanefaber.com (June 2010)
Foggy Mirror
If you were purchasing a home, would the price 10 years ago be a major factor in your purchase decision? Probably not. Call me crazy, but I would be more interested in today’s price and even more interested in the price of the home 10 years into the future. The financial markets factor in forward looking data (not backward looking data). Conventional valuation techniques applied to various assets, take for example a bond, involve the discounting of future cash flow values back to the present – in order to determine the relative attractiveness of today’s asset price. The previous 10-years of data are irrelevant in this calculation.
Although I believe current and future expectations are much more important than stale historical data, I can appreciate the insights that can be drawn by comparing current information with historical averages. In other words, if I was purchasing a house, I would be interested in comparing today’s price to the historical 10-year average price. Currently, the P/E-10 ratio stands at a level around 22x – 38% more expensive than the 16x average value for the previous decade. That same 22x current P/E-10 ratio compares to a current forward P/E ratio of 13x. A big problem is the 22x P/E-10 is not adequately taking into account the dramatic growth in earnings that is taking place (estimated 2010 operating earnings are expected to register in at a whopping +45% growth).
Mean P/E 10 Value is 16.4x Source: http://www.multpl.com
Additional problems with P/E-10:
1) The future 10 years might not be representative of the extreme technology and credit bubble we experienced over the last 10 years. Perhaps excluding the outlier years of 2000 and 2009 would make the ratio more relevant.
2) The current P/E-10 ratio is being anchored down by extreme prices from a narrow sector of technology a decade ago. Value stocks significantly outperformed technology over the last 10 years, much like small cap stocks outperformed in the 1970s when the Nifty Fifty stocks dominated the index and then unraveled.
3) Earnings are rising faster than prices are increasing, so investors waiting for the P/E-10 to come down could be missing out on the opportunity cost of price appreciation. The distorted P/E ratios earlier in the decade virtually guarantee the P/E-10 to drop, absent a current market melt-up, because P/E ratios were so high back then.
4) The tool has been a horrible predictor over very long periods of time. For example, had you followed the tool, the red light would have caused you to miss the massive appreciation in the 1990s, and the green light in the early 1970s would have led to little to no appreciation for close to 10 years.
Shiller himself understands the shortcomings of P/E-10:
“It is also dangerous to assume that historical relations are necessarily applicable to the future. There could be fundamental structural changes occurring now that mean that the past of the stock market is no longer a guide to the future.”
How good an indicator was P/E-10 for the proponent himself at the bottom of the market in February 2009? Shiller said he would get back in the market after another 30% drop in the ratio (click here for video). As we know, shortly thereafter, the market went on a near +70% upwards rampage. I guess Shiller just needs another -55% drop in the ratio from here to invest in the market?
Incidentally, Shiller did not invent the cyclically adjusted P/E tool, as famed value investor Benjamin Graham also used a similar tool. The average investor loves simplicity, but what P/E-10 offers with ease-of-use, it lacks in usefulness. I agree with the P/E-10 intent of smoothing out volatile cycle data (artificially inflated in booms and falsely depressed in recessions), but I recommend investors pull out a pair of binoculars (current and forward P/Es) rather than rely on a foggy rearview mirror.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position 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.
Flying to the Moon via Hyperinflation
With Ben Bernanke and his fellow Fed friends about to crank up the printing presses to overdrive, QE2 (quantitative easing part II) is top of mind among investors. QE2 talks of purchasing Treasuries and mortgage backed securities to pump more dollars into the financial system has been cited by many observers as a key factor in the upward progression in the equity markets over the last couple months. But is too much of a good thing in the short-run, detrimental in the long run due to inflationary pressures?
Not necessarily, if you consider the path of stocks in the hyperinflationary Israeli market of the 1970s and 1980s. Dylan Grice from Societe Generale notes that Israeli inflation averaged 84% from 1972 – 1987. During that period, Israeli equity markets managed to increase by a factor of 6,500 times according to Grice. So while inflation skyrocketed to the moon, so did stock prices. Will QE2 ignite dormant core inflation, which is hovering around 1%? If a declining U.S. dollar and rising commodity prices are the canary in the coalmine, then maybe piling into bonds like the majority of Americans is not the best idea?
Source: Business Insider - Clusterstock
Grice may be worried about inflation in the U.S., but Japan is at the forefront on his radar. Supporting that view, he has a modest 63,00,000.00 target on the Nikkei index by 2025 (the index sits at 9,160 today). That’s right…63 million. A near 7,000-fold increase may sound insane, but with exploding debt levels and deficits, coupled with declining demographics from an aging population, perhaps hyperinflation is not out of the question?
If push comes to shove, the Japanese government may print enough money to monetize debt the marketplace cannot absorb. Crazier things have happened in world history – during 1923 in the Weimar Republic of Germany hyperinflation led to a 4,200,000,000,000 German Mark to $1 U.S. dollar exchange rate. More recently we experienced a 79,600,000,000% inflation rate in Zimbabwe and the government actually issued a $100 trillion note. These astronomical inflation rates make our domestic inflationary worries seem like kids-play, but eventually the simple laws of economics will take over, if we do not get our fiscal house in order.
Double digit inflation in the U.S. during the stagflation era of the 1970s crimped Price-Earnings (P/E) ratios to single-digit levels, but this is not surprising with a Federal Funds rate that hit 20% in 1980 – 1981. Today the Fed Funds rate is at 0%, so I don’t think single-digit P/Es will be upon us anytime soon.
The great thing about money is it goes where it is treated best over the long run. In the short-run, money will slosh around and chase performance based on speculative animal spirits, but over time what Adam Smith called the “invisible hand” directs capital to appropriate investments. It was just a few months ago that pundits were talking about double-dip and deflation scenarios (see Double-Dip Guesses), and now on the brink of QE2, the pendulum has swung back to inflation fears. Printing excess amounts of money may provide temporarily fuel to help lift the economy off the ground, but if irresponsible fiscal decisions continue, then the economic rocket scheduled for the moon may come crashing back down with the economy. Do yourself a favor and pack a parachute filled with an adequate amount of equities – they will help protect you if your bond portfolio comes crashing down on higher rates and inflation.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position 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.
Listening for Dinner Bell or Penalty Whistle?
Excerpt from my monthly newsletter (sign-up on the right of page)…
Investors are eagerly waiting on the sidelines wondering whether to listen for a dinner bell signaling the time to sink their teeth into traditional equity investments, or respond to a penalty whistle by nervously maintaining money in depleted, inflation-losing CDs. A large swath of investors are still scarred from the losses experienced from the 2008-2009 financial crisis and are trying to rationalize the recent +80% move in equity markets (S&P 500 index) over the last 18 months. Eating saltine crackers and drinking water in CDs and money market accounts yielding < 1% feels OK when the world is collapsing around you, but eventually people realize retirement goals are tough to achieve with the money stuffed under the mattress.
Here are some recent bells and whistles we are listening to:
Mid-Term Elections: Regardless of your politics, Republicans are forecasted to regain control of the House of Representatives, while expectations for a narrow Democrat Senate majority remains the consensus. Currently, Democrat Jerry Brown is a handful of points in the lead over Meg Whitman for the California governor’s race. Another issue voters are closely monitoring is the likelihood of Bush tax-cut extensions.
Printing Press Part II: The Federal Reserve has strongly hinted of another round at the printing press in an effort to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates low (e.g., record low 30-year fixed mortgage rates around 4.2%). The Fed accomplishes this so-called Quantitative Easing (or QE2) by purchasing Treasuries and mortgage backed securities – pumping more dollars into the financial system to expand credit and loans. In addition, QE2 is structured to stimulate the meager 0.8% core inflation experienced over the last 12 months (Bloomberg) to a Goldilocks level – not too hot and not too cold. QE2 asset purchase estimates are all over the map, but estimates generally stand at the low end of the original $200 billion to $2 trillion range.
Growth Continues: Although companies are sitting on record piles of cash ($1.8 trillion for all non-financial companies), chief executive officers continue to have short arms with their deep pockets when it comes to spending on new hires. Persistent growth for five consecutive quarters (2% GDP expansion in Q2), coupled with tight cost controls, is resulting in 46% estimated growth in 2010 corporate profits as measured by the average of S&P 500 companies. For the time being, “double dip” worries have been put on hold for this jobless recovery.
Unemployment Hypochondria: As I wrote in an earlier Investing Caffeine article (READ HERE), there is an almost obsessive focus on the unemployment rate, which although moving in the right direction, remains at a stubbornly high 9.6% rate nationally. Fresh new employment data will be released this Friday.
Foreclosure-gate: As foreclosures have increased and the decline in the housing market has matured, investors have grown more impatient with collections from mortgage backed securities originators. Banks and other mortgage lenders could face more than $100 billion in losses (CNBC) in mortgage “putbacks” related to improper packaging and terms disclosed to investors. Lawyers are salivating at the opportunity of litigating the thousands of potential cases across the country.
Create Your Own Blueprint – Block Noise
In reality, there is no dinner bell or penalty whistle when it comes to investing. Sure, we hear dinner bells and whistles every day on TV from strategists and economists, but in this sordid, cacophony of daily noise, the long line-up of soothsayers are constantly switching back and forth between optimistic bells and pessimistic whistles. The consistent onslaught of this indiscernible noise serves no constructive purpose for the average investor. I strongly believe the correct plan of attack is to create a customized investment plan that meets your long-term objectives, constraints, and risk tolerance. By creating a diversified portfolio of low-cost tax-efficient products and strategies, I believe investors will be more securely positioned for a more comfortable and less stressful retirement.
I have my own opinions on the economic environment, which I detail in excruciating detail through my InvestingCaffeine.com writings. These macro-economic opinions are stimulating but have little to no bearing on the construction of my investment portfolios. More important is focusing on the investment areas with the best fundamental prospects, while balancing risk and return for each client.
Despite what I just said, if you are still determined to know my opinions on the market direction, then follow me to the dinner table; I just heard the dinner bell ring.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in GE, 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.
Rams Butting Heads: Rosenberg vs. Paulsen
Source: Photobucket
After a massive decline in financial markets during 2008, followed by a significant rebound in during 2009, should it be a surprise to anyone that economists hold directly opposing views? Financial markets are Darwinian in many respects, and Bloomberg was not bashful about stirring up a battle between David Rosenberg (Chief Economist & Strategist at Gluskin Sheff) and James Paulsen (Chief Investment Strategist at Wells Capital Management). The two economists, like the equivalent of two rams, lowered their horns and butted heads regarding their viewpoints on the economy. Rams butt heads (two words) together as a way to create a social order and hierarchy, so depending on your views, you can determine for yourself whom is the survival of the fittest. Regardless of your opinion, the exchange is an entertaining clash:
Paulsen’s Case (see also Unemployment Hypochondria): Paulsen makes the case that although the recovery has not been a gangbuster, nonetheless, the rebound has been the strongest in 25 years if you look at real GDP growth in the first year after a recession ends. He blames demographic atrophy in labor force growth (i.e., less job growth from Baby Boomers and fewer women joining the workforce relative to the mid-1980s) for the less than stellar absolute number.
Rosenberg’s Case: Rosenberg explains that the last two recoveries bear no resemblance to the recent recovery. The recent recession was one of the worst of all-time, therefore we should have experienced a sharper V-shaped recovery. All the major economic statistics are at dismal levels, and nowhere near the levels experienced in late 2007. He goes on to add that the stimulus, monetary policy, and bailouts have not produced the bang for our buck. Rosenberg says he will put on his bull hat once we enter a credit creation cycle that allows the economy to grow on an organic, sustained basis without artificial stimuli.
Like other pre-crisis bears who have floated to the top of the media mountain, Rosenberg has had difficulty adjusting his doom and gloom playbook as markets have rebounded approximately +80% from March 2009. Rosenberg maintained his pessimistic outlook as he transitioned from Merrill Lynch to Gluskin Sheff and has been wrong ever since. How wrong? Let’s take a look at Rosenberg’s first letter at his new employer, Gluskin Sheff (dated May 19th 2009):
Statement #1: “It stands to reason that this was just another counter-trend rally.” Reality: Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 8,475 then, and 11,114 today.
Statement #2: “It now looks as though the major averages are about to embark on the fabled retesting phase towards the March lows.” Reality: Dow never got close to 6,470 and stands at 11,114 today.
Statement #3: “It is unlikely that we have crossed the Rubicon into new bull market terrain and that the fundamental lows have been put in.” Reality: Dow just needs to fall -42% and Rosenberg will be right.
Statement #4: “[Unemployment] looks like we will likely get back to that old peak of 10.8% in coming quarters.” Reality: We peaked at 10.1% in October a year ago, and stand at 9.6% today.
Statement #5: “Deflation risks continue to trump inflation risks, at least over the near- and intermediate-term.” Reality: Commodity prices are dramatically escalating (CRB commodity index skyrocketing) across many categories, including the four-Cs (copper, corn, cotton, and crude oil).
I don’t pretend to be whistling past the graveyard, because we indeed have serious structural problems (deficits, debt, unsustainable entitlements, high unemployment, etc., etc., etc.), but when was there never something to worry about? See 1963 article? Like the endless “double dip” economists before him (see also Double-Dip Guesses). As the evidence shows, Rosenberg’s anything-but-rosy outlook is a tad extreme and has been dead wrong…at least for the last 1 and ½ years or almost 3,000 Dow Points. Just a few months ago, Rosenberg raised the odds of a double-dip recession from 45% to 67%.
Perhaps the sugar high stimulus will wear off, the steroid side-effects will kick in, and the Fed’s printing presses will break down and cause an economic fire? Until then, corporate profits continue to swell, cash is piling higher, valuations have been chopped in half from a decade ago (see Marathon Investing), and money stuffed under the mattress earning 0.5% will eventually leak back into the market.
I do however agree with Rosenberg in a few respects, and that revolves around his belief that banking industry will not be the leading group out of this cyclical recovery, and housing headwinds will remain in place for a extended period of time. Moreover, I agree with many of the bears when it comes to government involvement. Artificially propping up sectors like housing makes no sense. Why delay the inevitable by flushing taxpayer money down the toilet. Did you see the government running cash for clunker servers and storage in 2000 when the tech bubble burst? Does incentivizing capacity expansion with free money in an industry with boatloads of excess capacity already really make sense? Although media commentators and gloomy economists like Rosenberg paint everything as black and white, most reasonable people understand there are many shades of gray.
Gray that is…like the color of two rams butting heads.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position 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.
Investing Caffeine 
